watch_status

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

Goes far beyond annotations: it explains that registration is not polling, that monitor_alive does not prove AI wake-up, that stale activity is unknown, and that state=expired means the 15-minute lease ended and profiles were released. These are exactly the behavioral edge cases an agent needs to interpret status correctly.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and each caveat adds useful semantic detail. No sentence is filler, though it could be tightened.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description names the key returned fields and interprets lease_age_seconds and expired state. It could be more complete by describing the duty_id parameter and possible observed_state values, but the main usage context is covered.

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% and the only parameter, duty_id, is not described. 'This duty's' is only an implicit reference to the parameter; there is no mention of how to obtain a valid duty_id or what values are acceptable.

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?

Starts with 'Show this duty's delivery counts...' naming the verb, resource, and specific fields. This clearly identifies a per-duty status query and distinguishes it from sibling watch_* tools like watch_activity and watch_list.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to verify a promised listener,' which tells the agent the intended scenario. It also gives interpretive constraints (not polling, monitor_alive is only a probe) but does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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