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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true) in a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful operational fact beyond annotations — the org-key prerequisite — but says nothing about result size, ordering, or what an empty watchlist looks like.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the payload description comes first and the precondition follows. Every clause carries information.

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 parameterless read with no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what comes back and what is required to call it. Pagination or drift-threshold semantics are unstated, but the core is covered.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot carry parameter meaning and the baseline is 4. The description notes the org key is needed, but since this is not exposed as a parameter, there is no syntax to clarify.

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 names the resource (watched servers) and the payload content (pinned tools_hash plus drift status), which clearly separates it from scan_watch and scan_unwatch. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', so it reads as a noun phrase, but the intent 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus scan_changes, scan_server, or scan_owner_listing, which all touch the same watch/drift domain. The only guidance is the prerequisite 'Needs the org key', which is a setup note rather than usage routing.

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