check_watches

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: read-only, idempotent, does not advance watermark, safe for repeated calls. It also notes the required authentication ('Requires SF_API_KEY'). 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 concise, using only four sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter relationships, and safety. It mentions the result shape (like search_papers) and the API key requirement. Missing details like error handling or pagination are not critical for this tool.

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 input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of watch_name and watch_id, and reiterating the scoping logic. This goes beyond the schema, warranting a score above the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Pull new matching papers'), the resource ('papers since the last digest delivery'), and the similarity to search_papers results. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the watch context and noting it is read-only and idempotent.

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 clear usage guidance: it can be scoped to a single watch by name or ID, or omitted for all watches. It explicitly states it is safe to call repeatedly without advancing any watermark, helping the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like preview_watch or list_watches.

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