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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying output ordering (by closing date) and included fields (days remaining, notes), which helps the agent anticipate the result format. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but this is minor for a simple read-only list.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by relevant output details. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description serves as the sole source of return information. It conveys the list nature, sorting, and key fields (days remaining, notes), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. It omits details like whether it returns full opportunity objects or just summaries, but for a watchlist view this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on output behavior. Baseline 4 for no-parameter tools is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('watched opportunities'), and adds concrete details (sorted by closing date, days remaining, notes) that clearly distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_deadlines or search_opportunities. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies a clear use case—when the user wants to view their watchlist—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It lacks guidance on choosing between this and other listing tools, though the name and context make the primary use evident.

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