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

Goes well beyond the annotations: two-step consent flow via consentUrl on www.autoisto.sk, prohibition on asking for or handling the user's e-mail, opening the link, 24-hour expiry of unconfirmed drafts, e-mail delivery of matches, and encryption of hiddenLimitEur. Annotations only say it is non-read-only and non-idempotent, so this added operational detail is exactly what the description must supply.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then the consent mechanics, then optional-parameter guidance and coverage caveats. Despite being long, every sentence carries an actionable constraint and none is redundant 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with an output schema, this covers everything the agent needs: when to call it, what it returns (consentUrl, intentCode), what the agent must not do, how long an unconfirmed draft lives, and the data-coverage limitation of an aggregator.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: hiddenLimitEur is optional, must be passed only if the user volunteered it, is stored encrypted and never surfaced to sellers or any tool, and buyBy stops the watch. It also frames statement/niceToHave semantics (required match phrase vs. non-filtering wishes) that go slightly beyond the schema wording.

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 action (create a standing watch request for car listings) with the domain spelled out (Slovak listings, AutoIsto, EUR) and a concrete example. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling read/withdraw tools intent_get_intent, intent_list_matches and intent_withdraw_intent.

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?

Explicitly gives the trigger condition ("when the user asks AutoIsto to keep watching ... over time") with a sample utterance, states what the tool does not do (does not start watching itself), and routes the agent to intent_list_matches with the returned intentCode for reading results.

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