start_alert_poller

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: the polling runs in the background, is cron-based, recurs at intervals, and covers all active watchlist items. It does not say what happens on a duplicate start (idempotent vs. error vs. multiple jobs), whether the schedule persists or needs restarting, or what is returned. Those are meaningful gaps for a job-starting operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualifying scope and cadence. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter job starter with no output schema, the description covers what the job does and its scope. It omits the operational details an agent would want — behavior when a poller is already running and whether a handle or confirmation is returned — which leaves the definition adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 100% and the single intervalMinutes parameter already documents its meaning and its 30-minute default. The phrase 'at regular intervals' echoes the parameter but adds no format, bounds, or minimum-interval information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action and resource: starting background cron polling for price drops. The scope ('all active watchlist items') and recurrence ('at regular intervals') are explicit, so an agent can distinguish this from a one-off poll. It stops short of naming the stop/status siblings, but the verb 'Start' already signals the opposite of stopping.

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?

Use is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this sets up recurring monitoring rather than a single check. There is no explicit guidance on when not to call it, whether to call it before or after adding items to the watchlist, or how it relates to the one-off poll sibling. The alternatives are only discoverable from the sibling names, not from this text.

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