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.