manage_watchlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether adding or removing is destructive), access requirements, rate limits, or what 'check_new' returns. Only bare action descriptions are given.

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 relatively concise (3 lines plus bullet list). It front-loads the main purpose and lists actions cleanly. However, it could be more structured (e.g., parameter descriptions in a table) and the Korean language may limit universal clarity.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the overall purpose and action-specific parameter requirements but misses some parameters. With no annotations, more detail on behavior and return values would improve completeness. The output schema may compensate for return values, so score is average.

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 two parameters (keyword, watch_id) are mentioned in context of specific actions, but business_type and institution are omitted despite being in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all parameters; it fails to do so, leaving ambiguity about the role of business_type and institution.

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?

Title is missing but description states 'keyword monitoring' and lists four specific actions (add, remove, list, check_new). The name 'manage_watchlist' together with the actions makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like analyze_competitor or search_procurement.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists actions but does not provide context such as 'use this to manage keywords, use search_procurement to find announcements' or when to prefer one action over another. Implicit usage is derived only from action names.

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