GAIP Supplier Watch Agent

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

With readOnlyHint=false, the description usefully explains the side effect ('records a GAIP receipt only') and adds cost/auth context ('Free, no account') plus a data constraint ('inputs must be public and non-personal'). It also pre-announces the return taxonomy (BREAKING/NON_BREAKING/INFO with migration notes). It stops short of disclosing failure modes or rate limits.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and naming the required params, then output shape, then cost/constraint caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 10-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, required inputs, return classification and side effects/constraints. The optional GAIP plumbing parameters (continuity_handle, episode_id, etc.) are left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters including enums and nested objects. The description only names `prior` and `current`, adding nothing the schema does not already provide; 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?

The description pairs a specific verb (compare/what changed) with the exact resource set (agent card, MCP server description, OpenAPI document) and gives a plain-language trigger ('did this API break?'). An agent can distinguish this from generic change tools such as gaip_manifest_changes without opening the 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use this when asked what changed between two versions') and the required inputs. It does not name or exclude sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a full routing rule but the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive and non-open-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it is free, requires no account, inputs must be public and non-personal, and results are time-correlated observations rather than causal claims. That last caveat is important for interpretation and is not in any structured field; only rate limits and the meaning of idempotentHint=false (repeated calls may return different observations) are left unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before inputs and traits, so every sentence does work. It is slightly dense with stacked parentheticals and prose asides, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With 11 params, nested objects, and no output schema, the description does the necessary compensating work by summarizing the return ('diagnosis plus changes observed... with receipts'). The one real gap is the missing boundary against gaip_diagnose_integration_failure, which matters given the overlap in inputs and purpose.

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 11 well-documented params, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description names supplier_url and failure but adds no format, defaults, or constraint detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 gives a specific trigger and outcome: it diagnoses why 'a supplier agent or API you depend on started failing' and returns 'the diagnosis plus changes GAIP observed around then.' That is a clear verb+resource, but it never names or contrasts with its only sibling, gaip_diagnose_integration_failure, which the input schema itself references ('as for gaip_diagnose_integration_failure'), so the supplier-vs-integration boundary is left ambiguous.

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 opens with an explicit selection condition ('Use this when a supplier agent or API you depend on started failing') and even supplies the user's likely phrasing ('did something change on their side?'). There is no when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling for the alternative case, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: it is free, needs no account, and requires inputs to be public and non-personal. It also discloses the shape of the result, which the annotations do not.

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 with the trigger front-loaded and the return payload second. 'Read-only' is restated even though annotations cover it, a small redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes return fields and auth requirements, and the nested continuity_handle is documented in the schema. It is close to complete; pagination/ordering of the returned events is left unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, watch_id, and continuity_handle. The description only reinforces the continuity_handle's ownership role ('proves you own these watches'), adding marginal meaning over the schema.

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+resource ('Read watch change events') and enumerates what comes back (verdict before/after, change summary, receipt and webhook delivery status). It implicitly separates itself from gaip_watch_list and gaip_watch_register, but never names the alternative explicitly, so a sibling-aware agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

'Use this when asked what changed on a watched agent or service' gives a clear triggering context, and it tells the caller to pass continuity_handle and optionally watch_id. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g., listing watches vs. reading events).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: exactly which fields come back (kind, target, last verdict, last/next check, webhook endpoint), that the secret is never returned, and that the operation is free with no account — a solid supplement beyond the 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?

Three compact sentences: trigger first, the single required input second, the return shape and safety limits last. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explicitly noting the secret is excluded. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile and the fully-described single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that the handle 'proves you own these watches.' The description only restates 'pass your continuity_handle,' adding no format or provenance detail beyond the schema, so the 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 — listing the watches the caller owns — and names the trigger explicitly ('when asked which agents or services you are watching'). It implicitly separates itself from gaip_watch_events (events vs. watch list) and gaip_watch_register/remove, but it never names a sibling outright, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use this when asked which agents or services you are watching' gives a clear, concrete activation context, and the read-only/free framing tells the agent this is safe to call unprompted. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds real value on top: the 24-hour cadence, the 3-free-watch quota, that changes are receipted and can fire a webhook, and that only public/non-personal inputs are allowed. It omits what happens if the same watch is registered twice (redundancy vs. duplicate), which would have sealed a 5.

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 that front-load the trigger condition and the required arguments before the operational details. No filler, though the final "Free, no account; records a GAIP receipt only" clause is slightly compressed and could be clearer.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, quota, cadence, side effects (receipt, webhook), and data restrictions well. It never indicates what the call returns or how to later inspect the watch, which is a minor gap given the sibling listing tool exists.

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%, so each parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including enums and defaults. The description adds only the note that continuity_handle comes from any GAIP result, which the schema also states, so the baseline 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 concrete action (keep an eye on an agent or MCP server, re-checking every 24 hours and receipting changes) against a specific resource. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the sibling tools (gaip_watch_events, gaip_watch_list, gaip_watch_remove) that a caller might confuse it with, so the differentiation burden rests on the reader.

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?

"Use this when asked to keep an eye on an agent or MCP server ('tell me if it changes or goes down')" gives an explicit triggering condition rather than implying usage. It stops short of when-not guidance or pointing to the sibling that lists/removes watches.

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

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it specifies exactly what is destroyed (stored events), what survives (retained receipts stay verifiable), the cost/auth model (free, no account), the side effect (records a GAIP receipt), and an input constraint (public, non-personal). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a destructive operation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the required inputs, then the destructive/retention semantics. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 destructive, two-parameter tool with nested inputs and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the required arguments, destruction scope, retention behavior, cost/auth, and input constraints — everything an agent needs before invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both watch_id (returned by gaip_watch_register) and continuity_handle (proves ownership). The description restates that both must be passed but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — stop/remove a watch on an agent or service — and pairs it against the register flow via the required watch_id, so an agent can tell it apart from gaip_watch_register or gaip_watch_list without opening a 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?

"Use this when asked to stop watching an agent or service" gives an explicit trigger condition. It does not name a when-not case or explicitly contrast with gaip_watch_list (view) versus this removal tool, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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