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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs real-time IMAP IDLE watching and triggers push notifications, which is a key behavior. However, it omits details such as whether the watch is persistent, how notifications are delivered, prerequisites (e.g., account configuration), or how to stop the watch, which are expected for a start-type tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action and purpose, and adds useful compatibility info without redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the action, its purpose, and compatible providers, which is sufficient for a simple start command. However, it could be more complete by specifying how push notifications are delivered (e.g., webhook) and any prerequisites, making 4 rather than 5.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'account' is already described with examples and default behavior ('Omit to watch all configured accounts'). The description adds general context about email accounts but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool starts real-time IMAP IDLE watching on email accounts, with the specific outcome of push notifications for new emails. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stop_idle_watch and get_idle_status by focusing on the start action and its real-time nature.

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 implies the tool should be used when the user wants push notifications for new emails, and mentions compatibility with Gmail, iCloud, Office365, etc. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like read_inbox or start_smtp_receiver, nor does it state when not to use it.

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