tool_watch_fare

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses writes to local profile store (~/.wander_agent/), no external auth required, returns watch_id, baseline, and target_price (auto-set to 10% below baseline if not specified), and that the watch is passive—prices re-checked only when tool_check_fare_watches is called. This is thorough, though it could mention error conditions or rate 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?

The description is well-structured with a concise first sentence stating the purpose, followed by behavioral notes, usage guidelines, and a parameter list. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value 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 annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description covers core functionality: return values (watch_id, baseline, target_price), the passive polling model, and auto-set default. It is mostly complete but could mention error handling or limits (e.g., max number of watches).

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 coverage is 0%, so description must and does add meaning for all parameters: origin/destination (IATA codes), depart_date/return_date (YYYY-MM-DD, with clarification for round trip vs one-way), adults (affects baseline), currency (ISO code), target_price (omit to auto-set). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 creates a fare watch, records a baseline, and alerts on target price. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tool_check_fare_watches, tool_list_fare_watches, and tool_stop_fare_watch by specifying the action 'Create' and the resource 'fare watch'.

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 provides explicit context on when to use this tool: 'Use this to begin monitoring a route.' It also names alternatives: 'Use tool_check_fare_watches to poll for price changes. Use tool_list_fare_watches to see all active watches. Use tool_stop_fare_watch to pause or delete a watch.' This clearly guides the agent on tool selection.

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