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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the meaningful detail that the watchlist is persistent and that auth/subscription is required. It stops short of covering edge behavior such as duplicate references or whether the note is editable later.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the auth prerequisite. No wasted text.

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 two-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, sources, persistence, and access requirements. Minor gap: no statement of what happens on a duplicate add or how the note is used.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the optional note adds nothing beyond it; 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?

Specific verb (Add) plus resource (opportunity to watchlist), and it names the two source systems (CanadaBuys, Alberta APC). Clearly distinguishable from its siblings unwatch_opportunity and list_watchlist.

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?

States the prerequisites explicitly: sign-in and an active workspaceAlberta Pro subscription are needed for the hosted path. It does not explicitly route the agent toward or away from siblings (e.g., when to use watch vs. list_watchlist first), but the context is unambiguous.

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