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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful scope beyond that: it lists only ACTIVE watches (implicitly excluding inactive ones) and enumerates the fields returned (health, last check time, pending changes), which is genuinely useful context for interpreting results.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the verb, scope, and returned fields front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value information, and it does list the key returned fields. It omits pagination/ordering behavior and the maximum number of watches returned, which are minor gaps for a read-only list 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema fully documents client_token and its Authorization-header fallback. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is fine at baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('List all active watches for your client') and clarifies the returned data (health, last check time, pending changes). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_watch, but the plural 'all' plus 'active' scope makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

Usage is implied by the plural listing scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of get_watch as the alternative for a single watch, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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