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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds value with the auth requirement and the structured failure contract (error.code, retry_recommended, retry_after_seconds), which annotations cannot express. It says nothing about pagination behavior or what an empty watchlist looks like, so beyond the error contract the added disclosure is modest.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the prerequisite and the error contract. The enumerated error field list is slightly listy in prose but each item carries meaning for retry handling, so it earns its space.

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 read-only paginated list tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, and failure semantics adequately. It skips pagination guidance and return-shape hints, but those are carried by the schema and output schema respectively.

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% and all three parameters carry descriptions including defaults (limit 50, offset 0), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates only the api_key requirement with the same pwk_live prefix already in the schema, adding no semantics beyond structured fields — baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List products your account watches') with the added scope of continuous price updates, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as list_price_alerts or get_watch_status, which an agent must infer.

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 prerequisite (a pwk_live API key and where to obtain it) is spelled out clearly, which is genuine usage guidance. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_price_alerts, get_watch_status, or search_products, and no exclusion conditions — usage is only implied.

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