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

The description discloses behaviors beyond annotations: proactive re-checking when 'recheck_after_unix' elapses, posting to webhook on material changes, and returning the watch row with a timestamp. No contradiction with annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint are all false, consistent with registration).

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 description is three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides useful context: registration, lifecycle, return value. No redundant or vague language.

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 tool with 3 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the registration process, follow-up behavior, and return details. It does not explain what a 're-call watch' is in depth, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its use.

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?

All 3 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'webhook_url' (optional, POST on staleness) and clarifying the role of 'payer_wallet' and 'seller_wallet'. It also notes the return value includes 'recheck_after_unix', enhancing understanding.

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 clearly states the tool registers a re-call watch on a seller wallet, using a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('watch on seller wallet'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'twzrd_watch_list' and 'twzrd_watch_remove' by focusing on creation.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and its lifecycle (proactive re-check, webhook notification), but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it. This is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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