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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the removal semantics are covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: the hosted deployment requires sign-in and an active workspaceAlberta Pro subscription. It does not state whether removal is reversible or what happens if the reference is not found, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the access constraint following. No redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter, non-open-world destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the identifier, and the access requirements. It could go further by noting irreversibility or behavior on an unknown reference, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Reference number to stop tracking.' The description's mention of 'by reference number' only restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (remove), resource (watchlist entry), and identifier (reference number) in one sentence. The inverse relationship to the sibling watch_opportunity is self-evident, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_watchlist or other watchlist tools.

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 intended action is implied clearly by 'remove an opportunity from the watchlist,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites beyond auth, and no mention of alternatives such as list_watchlist for viewing entries first.

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