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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the registration handshake (Ned POSTs a signed test callback within 60s then fires on change), the free-tier interval floor of 300s, and that a first call without an agent key returns an agent_key shown once. It omits only secondary details like idempotency or a full response shape.

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 verb and type enum, then organized by parameter, so it is easy to scan. A few sentences are dense and run-on (the callback/key bootstrap passage), costing some readability but not adding waste.

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 complex bootstrap flow with no output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs: how to register, the condition formats, the handshake, and the agent_key response. It stops short of describing the full return payload or failure modes, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all six parameters: type values, notify (up to 3 webhook URLs), target URL vs omission for deadman, interval_s floor, and concrete condition examples per type. This adds substantial meaning the bare schema lacks.

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+resource ('Register a watch') and immediately scopes the type dimension, explicitly routing overrun and content cases to the overrun_watch / content_watch siblings. An agent can distinguish this from its sibling watch tools without opening the schema.

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 the condition that selects alternatives ('for overrun and content use overrun_watch / content_watch') and per-type guidance for target and condition. It does not explicitly contrast against watch_get/watch_cancel, but the routing to the ambiguous siblings is covered clearly.

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