revnuvo_monitor_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does disclose that invocation is non-atomic: a baseline scan runs immediately and rechecks happen on a schedule, with delivery depending on webhooks. It doesn't mention idempotency, cancellation, or delivery payloads, but the core asynchronous behavior is clearly conveyed.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the action and scheduling behavior, then state the plan requirement. There is no redundant filler or restating of the tool name.

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 monitor-setup tool, the description covers the action, immediate baseline, scheduled rechecks, and delivery requirement. However, with no output schema, it doesn't explain what the call returns or how to retrieve results, and it doesn't address duplicate monitors or how to stop monitoring, leaving minor gaps.

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 schema already documents 'domain' with a clear description ('Company domain to monitor'), and the description's mention of 'domain' adds no format, normalization, or validation details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 an active verb ('watch') and specifies the resource (a domain) and core behavior (baseline scan immediately, scheduled rechecks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* and search tools, which are one-time queries.

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?

The description implies usage for ongoing change monitoring and states the webhooks plan prerequisite, but it doesn't explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_company_changes or verify_company. Prerequisite information is present, but comparative usage guidance is absent.

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