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

The annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by detailing exactly what is observed and by calling out that no wallet or session is required, which clarifies the operational context beyond the annotation flags. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence with no redundant or filler content. It leads with the core action and follow-up with what exactly can be watched plus an explicit access-related guarantee.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description captures all necessary high-level behavior. It explains the scope of content available and the lack of a session requirement, so an agent can effectively decide when to invoke it.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter-level information for the description to add. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description provides sufficient surrounding 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Watch' and identifies the resource: active NFH worlds, quests, game-only job prompts, isolated chats, and encounters. It clearly differentiates this from siblings like enter_signal_city and play_signal_city by framing it as an observational, non-interactive view.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to observe active worlds, quests, prompts, chats, and encounters. It also states 'No wallet or session required,' which signals an open, anonymous read-use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, such as play_signal_city or enter_signal_city for interactive actions.

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