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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral content: the report spans 'what changed since the first check,' the 'latest redirect chain,' and a bounded 'last 30 days' window. It does not mention pagination, per-link limits, or behavior for an unknown slug, so it falls short of a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then packs the enumerated statuses and time window without filler. No redundant restatement of the title or name.

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 carries the burden of describing return content — and it does, listing status categories, change history, redirect chain and the 30-day horizon. Missing only error/edge-case behavior (unknown slug, watch with zero links) and any note on report size.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that 'slug' accepts either a watch slug or its page_url. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('the state of every link in a printed-link watch'), then enumerates the exact dimensions returned: working, dead, moved, deactivated page, redirect changed, certificate expiring. That level of specificity clearly separates it from siblings like get_stats_url and watch_printed_links.

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 only implied by the noun 'watch' — an agent can guess this is the read side of watch_printed_links, but the description never says so, nor does it state prerequisites (must a watch exist first?) or when to prefer get_stats_url instead. No explicit when/when-not guidance.

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