Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already communicate that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful filter semantics but does not disclose return format, pagination, or default ordering; with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences contain the core purpose, the optional filter, and the pointer to the detail-level sibling tool. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple filtered list operation with rich annotations and fully described parameters, the description is complete. The lack of an output schema is acceptable here because the agent is told exactly what the tool lists and how to filter it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description's mention of the status filter reinforces but does not meaningfully extend the schema's own descriptions, which already explain that omitting status lists all watches.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('competitor watches'), and a scope ('for a workspace'). It also distinguishes itself from the related retrieval tool campaignstack_get_competitor_watch, which fetches post details for a single watch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly names the sibling tool to use when a specific watch's details are needed, making the division of responsibility clear. It also communicates the optional status filter, so an agent knows when this listing tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.