list_watches

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: receiver paths, query strings and secrets are redacted from the response, which an agent cannot learn from the annotations or an empty schema. It stops short of explaining result shape or limits.

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?

Three short, efficiently front-loaded sentences; the safety statement is placed last as a boundary rather than leading. Minor redundancy with the readOnly annotation, but no wasted wording.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this covers purpose, scope and redaction behavior adequately. It does not say what fields are actually returned or whether results are paginated, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter commentary, though the 'local mainnet API key' scoping is the only implicit input context.

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 and resource ('Read watches') plus the scope ('your local mainnet API key'), and the closing 'Does not create, delete or send' separates it from the prepare_create_watch / prepare_delete_watch siblings.

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 exclusions ('Does not create, delete or send') imply this is the read-only path versus the prepare_* siblings, but no sibling is named and no condition for choosing it over list_events or get_capabilities is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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