page_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains the baseline/cursor lifecycle, the key guarantee that the cursor only advances when a change is reported, cost ($0.003 USDC per call), and p99 latency (8000ms). These are non-obvious operational traits an agent needs before calling.

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 purpose, then mechanics, then use cases, then params, cost, and latency. Dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; the trailing cost/latency line is compact. Slightly long, but well organized.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it does: added and removed lines plus optional keyword alerts, and the cursor returned on the first call. Combined with the cost/latency disclosure, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: keywords alert only when a keyword 'newly appears', ignore filters lines containing substrings with examples (timestamps, ads), and render is for JavaScript pages. This goes beyond the schema's terse parameter docs.

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 ('Web Page Change Monitor') and the exact scope of output ('diff since last check' — added and removed lines of page text). This clearly differentiates it from one-shot siblings like webpage_reader, web_scrape, and site_crawl.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case as 'agents that check in a loop' and enumerates concrete scenarios (price pages, docs, changelogs, job boards, status pages, competitor sites, government notices). It doesn't name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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