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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'PRO' and supported document types, but does not state authentication requirements beyond what the schema's access_token description covers, nor does it describe rate limits, defaults, pagination, or return behavior.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the filter information is front-loaded. The leading 'PRO.' is unclear, and the brevity leaves important details unstated, but it is not verbose.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 20% schema description coverage. The description covers some filter semantics but omits date formats, defaults, authentication context beyond the schema, and behavioral details needed to invoke it confidently.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful context for agencies (format example) and types (rule, proposed, notice, presidential) and implies the since parameter, but it omits date format details, keyword behavior, and access_token semantics.

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 indicates that the tool returns documents since a date filtered by keywords, agency slugs, and document types, so the resource is inferable. However, it lacks a clear action verb (e.g., 'list' or 'retrieve') and does not distinguish this tool from the sibling reg_search.

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 explicit guidance on when to use reg_watch versus reg_search or open_comments. The filters imply a monitoring/search use case, but the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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