namesniper_watch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses multiple behavioral aspects: creates one watch per platform, enforces slot limits, skips already-watched pairs, runs automatic checks on a schedule, delivers alerts via in-app/email/webhooks, returns JSON with created ids and skipped count, and requires a paid API key. This is exceptionally thorough for a tool description.

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 6 sentences long, but every sentence adds unique value: purpose, operational behavior, scheduling, output, related tools, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids tautology or fluff. The structure is logical and information-dense without being overwrought.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers the action, prerequisites, side effects, return shape, and related operations. The only gap is the behavior when the plan's slot limit is exceeded (does it error? does it silently fail?), which is a minor omission given the stated slot-limit constraint.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), providing a baseline of 3. The tool description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'creates one watch per platform' and 'already-watched pairs are skipped', which clarifies how the platforms parameter behaves in practice. This goes beyond simple schema definitions, justifying a 4.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Start monitoring a taken username so the user can claim it the moment it frees up or drops.' This clearly states the tool's purpose and implies its scope (monitoring, not checking). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referring to namesniper_watches (list) and namesniper_unwatch (stop), making the unique role obvious.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for taken usernames, creates watches per platform, and mentions the plan-based schedule. It names sibling tools for listing and stopping watches, giving an implicit alternative. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool compared to check tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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