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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: scan intervals, plan restrictions, observation recording, change detection, result delivery, and the domain-limit side effect. This is strong disclosure for a monitoring tool, though it omits details like idempotency or authentication requirements.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and each clause adds useful information about scheduling, delivery, or plan impact. The second sentence is somewhat dense with lists, but it avoids unnecessary filler and reads cleanly.

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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, how results are obtained, and the important domain-limit consequence. It does not specify whether re-monitoring an already-watched domain updates or fails, but this is a minor gap for initial invocation.

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%, with both parameters already well documented: `domain` is self-explanatory and `interval_hours` includes its enum values and plan constraints. The description restates the interval/plan relationship but adds no new parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Start monitoring a company domain," and explains the ongoing, change-detection behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like revnuvo_get_company or revnuvo_search_company, which are one-time lookup or search operations.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: "Use it to answer 'alert me when something changes at this company'." It also explains where results surface (search_signals or webhook/email), giving an agent clear context. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use one-off alternatives like get_company or get_company_changes, so it is not a full 5.

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