validate_watch_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive and idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: no DNS lookup, no account change, no notification, and that checksum, receiver policy, quota and Telegram binding are only enforced at confirmed creation. This prevents the agent from over-trusting the result. What's missing is any statement of error or failure behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its side-effect exclusions, with no filler. The phrasing is slightly elliptical in the second clause but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what a validation result looks like, and with 0% schema coverage it should cover the three remaining parameters. It does a good job on scope and side effects, but the parameter and return-value gaps leave the agent guessing on invocation details.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It alludes to only two of them obliquely (address shape via 'Address shape is checked', channel via Telegram binding) and says nothing about direction, webhook_url, asset_filter, their enums or defaults.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Validate a TRON USDT/TRX watch draft') and immediately bounds the scope ('without DNS lookup, account change or notification'). It implicitly separates itself from creation-time behavior, though it never names the sibling prepare_create_watch that the agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is a lightweight pre-flight check before confirmed creation, and the 'without ...' clause signals what it deliberately avoids. There is no explicit when-to-use versus prepare_create_watch, nor any stated prerequisites for calling it.

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