Watch Check

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that domains report listed subdomains and that each item shows what is new since the previous check, but it does not state read-only status, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The added output behavior is helpful but incomplete.

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 short and front-loaded around the core action. The second sentence about new items and the subdomain note are useful but slightly clipped, leaving them a bit cryptic rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return values, and it still adds relevant behavioral context about deltas and subdomains. However, for an open-world scan tool with minimal annotations, it leaves out important operational context such as permissions or expected scan scope beyond the watch list.

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 100%, and the single optional parameter already documents that omitting value scans the entire watch list. The description adds no further parameter syntax, filtering, or formatting details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: scanning the watch list against USOM. It adds useful scope details, including subdomain reporting and delta reporting since the previous check. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as watch_list, but the purpose is clear without opening the schema.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like watch_list, check_domain, or check_url. The only usage-like guidance is embedded in the parameter schema, which says to omit value to scan the whole list; that is parameter behavior, not tool selection guidance.

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