create_watch

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the initial baseline is silent (no notification burst on creation), that polling is persistent and independent of the calling process, that the Telegram destination is administrator-configured rather than caller-specified, and what triggers a notification. It omits auth requirements, any cap on concurrent watches, and failure/retry behavior, which keeps it from 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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the most important behavioral facts (persistence, silent baseline, notification scope) come first. The fragmentary style and the unexplained 'Hermes' reference cost it a point.

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 mutation-style tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers runtime behavior well but leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning and about what is returned on success (presumably a watch identifier). Adequate but with clear gaps given the 0% schema coverage on a nested-object parameter.

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 largely does not. It only addresses 'interval_seconds' (default 600, which the schema already states as a default) and constrains 'query.order' to newest_first — a genuinely new constraint since the enum allows other values. The 'name' parameter and the price/section/currency/marketplace fields of the nested query get no explanation at all.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource: 'Create persistent polling', and adds scope that separates it from one-shot siblings like search_items ('persistent', 'silent initial complete baseline'). It never names a sibling explicitly, and 'independent of Hermes' is opaque jargon that assumes prior knowledge, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'New IDs only, not price drops' and 'Watch queries must use newest_first' give the agent real constraints on when this tool is appropriate and how it behaves once active. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose create_watch over search_items or how it relates to list_watches/update_watch, so usage is only implied.

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