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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: what the returned job set depends on (whether the watch was created with a url), which is the key non-obvious trait of this call.

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?

Two sentences, well front-loaded: the core behavior comes first and the usage hint second. The colon clause packing in the scope rule is dense but all of it is load-bearing, with no filler.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden by naming status and open jobs. Only minor gaps remain (behavior when the id is unknown, pagination/limits), which is acceptable for a two-parameter read tool.

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 50%: client_token is well documented in the schema, while watch_id carries only type/format. The description says nothing about obtaining or formatting watch_id, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds meaning. 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Get a watch') and goes further by stating exactly what comes back: the watch status plus the jobs currently open that match its filters. The scope rule (board-only for URL-scoped watches, all monitored boards otherwise) makes it distinguishable from list_watches and search_jobs.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('answer "what is open right now"') and steers the agent away from the alternative path of searching or fetching careers pages. It does not name a sibling tool by name or state when not to use it, but the routing intent is clear.

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