list_brand_audit_watches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds the important context that it is owner-scoped, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence (20 words), front-loaded with the core purpose 'Returns the caller's recurring brand-audit watches'. It efficiently lists the returned fields and adds scoping and read-only notes without 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 no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does. It lists the key fields returned and notes owner-scoping. Minor gaps might include pagination or ordering behavior, but for a simple list tool this is complete enough.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter information and thus meets the baseline for zero parameters.

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 it returns the caller's recurring brand-audit watches and lists the specific fields returned. The verb 'Returns' plus resource 'brand-audit watches' is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like register/delete/watch that perform mutations.

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 indicates it is owner-scoped but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like register_brand_audit_watch or delete_brand_audit_watch. The usage context is implied by the read-only nature, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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