Read the competitor watch

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results come from stored past runs, the call is free and never triggers a check, and — critically — findings marked seed:true are NOT new launches because the first check has nothing to diff against. That semantic caveat materially changes how results should be interpreted.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the board it mirrors, then uses and the seed caveat. Dense and mostly waste-free, though it runs long and the read-only/free note is slightly reiterated. Not bloated, but not maximally tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content — new ads per brand plus watch state (who is watched, last run, next run, success) — and it does so fully, including the seed:true interpretation. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 the schema fully documents limit (default 25, max 75, server cap) and competitor (exact name, omit for all). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: it reads the standing competitor watch's findings (new ads per watched brand) plus the watch's own state. It explicitly distinguishes itself from set_competitor_watch (which runs a check) and names the exact board it mirrors (Ad Spy > Watching), so an agent can place it among siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use cases ('what are our competitors running that's new?', feeding a teardown, saving via save_to_swipefile) and an explicit when-not: it never triggers a check, and set_competitor_watch({runNow:true}) is named as the alternative that does. Routing is unambiguous.

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