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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return payload (a per-watch secret), the signature header used for verification (X-Toolweather-Signature), and a quota limit (3 watches per key on free tier). It omits what happens on re-watching an already-watched server or how failure/auth errors surface.

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, no filler, with the trigger conditions front-loaded before the return-value and quota details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the returned secret and header verification. For a two-required-param mutation with no annotations it is nearly complete, missing only lifecycle details such as duplicate watches or how to stop one.

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 both parameters (server, webhook_url) are already documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint 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 action (register a webhook watch) on a specific resource (a server), and enumerates the exact trigger conditions: verdict change, auth requirement, breaking tool-list change. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling unwatch_server and list_watches.

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 trigger conditions give clear context for when a watch is relevant, and the free-tier quota hints at a practical constraint. However, it never names an alternative or states a when-not condition (e.g., use list_watches to audit existing watches first).

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