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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait—the result shape changes based on whether a host is supplied—and 'watch' weakly implies a read-only status operation. It does not clarify error behavior, what the summary contains, or whether any side effects occur.

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 two-sentence description is tight and front-loads the host-scoping behavior without fluff. The phrasing is a bit fragmented ('drift watch' is not a full verb phrase), but every clause contributes.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter tool, the host-versus-summary rule is the central call-time knowledge and it is present. But the description does not define 'declared-model drift', the returned summary, or the overall response shape, and with no output schema those details are absent.

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?

The schema only lists an optional string 'host' with an empty default, so the description's 'With a host, that host's tracked resources; otherwise a summary' adds the key semantic. It explains both modes of the parameter, though it does not specify the expected host format or possible values.

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 identifies a specific resource ('declared-model drift') and hints at host-scoped versus summary output, but it is written as a noun phrase rather than an explicit actionable statement. 'Tracked resources' and 'summary' are left unexplained, and the tool is not differentiated from siblings such as x401_status.

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?

It provides a clear conditional rule: pass a host for that host's tracked resources, or omit it for a summary. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like host_summary or x401_status, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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