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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for extra disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting that reads are 'free' and that results include 'verified on-chain evidence,' giving the agent a clearer picture of cost and return scope.

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 deliver the action, scope, prerequisite, cost, and read-only nature with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded and every clause 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, this description is complete: it states what is read, that the ID must be existing, that the operation is read-only, and that it is free. No output schema exists, but the description gives a sufficient high-level view of the return content.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter watchId is already described as 'Durable watch ID returned after successful activation.' The description echoes 'existing' and 'durable' but adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('durable state and verified on-chain evidence') for an existing RoundWatch watch ID. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, especially prepare_watch, by emphasizing read-only access to already-activated watches.

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 establishes a clear precondition: the watch ID must already exist and be durable. It implies this tool is for inspecting an active watch rather than creating one, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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