Check Watches (alerts)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'check' by revealing that it 'returns only what's new and rolls baselines forward'—a stateful side effect that is critical for an agent to understand. It also honestly notes the SEC filing index may lag up to ~1h (cache), setting correct expectations for freshness.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the function, the second explains the behavioral side effect, and the third gives usage guidance and a caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns ('only what's new'), when to use it (scheduled runs), and an important limitation (cache lag). No significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface to document. The description adds context about what the tool checks (all watches, since last check), which leverages the input schema fully (100% coverage by virtue of being empty). This meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource ('every watch') and scope ('for changes since the last check'). It explicitly mentions what is checked (new SEC filings, changed page content) and contrasts with sibling tools like watch_manage, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides concrete guidance: 'Run it on a schedule (cron / scheduled agent) to turn veris into an alert feed.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with web_search or finance_filings.

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