check_watchlist

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: notifications are sent when a product reaches its target price, and the scope is all active items. It says nothing about idempotency, whether repeated polls re-notify, blocking/synchronous behavior, or rate limits — material gaps for a tool that fires notifications.

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 sentence with no filler; the poll action and the trigger condition are both front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title that would be wasted.

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?

Complexity is low (no params, no nested objects), but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth about results. It never says what comes back — which items dropped, whether a notification was actually dispatched, or counts — leaving an agent unable to interpret the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly communicates that scope is implicit (all active watchlist items) rather than configurable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — poll active watchlist items for price drops — plus the outcome (trigger notifications on target hit). That is far more informative than a name restatement. It stops short of distinguishing itself from lookalike siblings such as poll_alerts_now or start_alert_poller.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to an alternative. Given that poll_alerts_now, poll_passive_inventory and start_alert_poller appear in the same namespace, an agent cannot infer from this description which poller to invoke.

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