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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the cost profile (poll costs zero extra credits), the differing return shapes for each op, one-time token semantics, and a deprecation timeline with a removal date. It stops short of describing what happens on a rejected or reused token and whether close is idempotent, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and tightly packed with routing, cost, and deprecation facts. The final sentence ('Returns the signal (poll) or the combined summary (close)') largely restates the second sentence, which is the one piece of avoidable redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what each op returns. Combined with the deprecation warning and preferred replacement, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to plan its migration.

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 67% and the schema already documents op's two values and the window_token's oww_ prefix. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: the token is one-time, comes from oracle_watch_window_begin, and must not be reused after close. window_id itself is still left to inference, but its meaning is unambiguous from context.

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?

States specific verbs (poll, close) applied to a specific resource (an already purchased Oracle Watch window) and names the token that scopes the operation. It explicitly differentiates itself from oracle_watch_window_begin (source of the token) and oracle_watch (one-off snapshot), so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('only with a window token from oracle_watch_window_begin'), an explicit when-not ('Do not use it for a one-off snapshot'), a lifecycle constraint ('never reuse a token after close'), and a preferred alternative (oracle_watch_window with op "poll"). Every routing decision is stated rather than inferred.

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