list_brand_audit_watches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing return fields and specifying owner-scoping, which is not in annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides context beyond what structured metadata conveys.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential details like the return fields and scoping. Every word earns its place, no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, output schema exists), the description provides all needed context: what it returns, the fields included, and that it's owner-scoped and read-only. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results without additional assumptions.

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 has 0 parameters, so the schema covers 100% of parameters trivially. Description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 'Returns the caller's recurring brand-audit watches' with specific fields (watchId, domain, interval, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register_brand_audit_watch and delete_brand_audit_watch by indicating it only lists existing watches.

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 notes 'Owner-scoped' and 'Read-only', implying it is for viewing one's own watches and safe to call anytime. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context of sibling tools like register/delete makes usage clear. It conveys when to use this tool versus others without explicit exclusion statements.

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