check_alerts

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

Discloses the timestamp update side effect, the incremental nature of results ('subsequent calls only return newer papers'), and the return structure. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, and the description does not contradict this; it clarifies the side effect is metadata-only. This goes beyond surface-level description.

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?

Four concise sentences, each adds critical information. No redundancy, front-loaded with the main purpose, then covers parameters, side effects, prerequisites, and output. Efficient and structured.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (watch_topic), behavior (timestamp update), and return value (summary + metadata). The context is complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, fully described in schema. The description adds value by explaining the exact matching requirement ('must match the topic string used in watch_topic exactly') and the behavioral difference between omitting vs. providing it. Coverage is 100%, so the description enriches but doesn't need to compensate.

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 uses specific language: 'Check all saved topic watches for newly published papers' with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on saved watches rather than general search or retrieval. The optional topic parameter is explained with behavior.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Omit to run all watches, pass a topic to check only that watch.' Also explicitly directs users to call watch_topic first. It lacks an explicit alternative tool comparison but the contextually relevant usage is well covered.

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