watch_domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to a time window and combine two signal types, but says nothing about rate limits, cost, or data limitations that would matter for a multi-domain sweep.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the competitor-scope constraint leads. It is a fragment rather than a full clause ('A radar over...'), which is slightly terse but not 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 return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a tool that merges two signal sources across multiple domains, one sentence leaves gaps around result granularity and how the two signal types interact.

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%, so 'days', 'domains' (with the 2-8 bound), and 'response_format' are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the 2-8 competitor limit and the window concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a concrete capability (monitoring new hostnames across 2-8 competitor domains) and the payload it returns ('top launch signals'). It's clear what the tool does but never distinguishes itself from siblings like new_subdomains or launch_signals, which appear to cover overlapping ground.

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?

Usage is only implied: the '2-8 competitors' and 'window' framing suggests a competitive-monitoring scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling. An agent must infer the choice from names alone.

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