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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: email alerts for four events and returns the created watch. It does not mention any destructive side effects, which matches the read/create nature of watching.

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 sentences with no fluff. First sentence defines the action, second sentence mentions output. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and output type ('Returns the created watch'). It notes the paid nature. Could be slightly more detailed about the return format but is still fairly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., origins, destinations, alert toggles). It focuses on high-level function, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 clearly states the verb 'Watch a lane' and specifies the exact alerts (blanked, cut-off closing, slip, reliability drops). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_sailings' or 'get_schedules' which are listing tools, while this is for monitoring.

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 mentions '(PAID)' indicating it's a paid feature but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. No alternatives or when-not-to-use hints are given.

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