watchlist_webwide

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms it reads already-collected results and does not run a live scan. It also explains behavior for unscanned ASINs (show 0 sources/never-scanned). No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with core functionality and is comprehensive, though slightly long. Every sentence adds value, but could be more concise. Still, it avoids fluff.

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?

Given 16 parameters and no output schema, the description explains return fields in detail and covers key behaviors. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though parameter details rely on schema.

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 56%, so many parameters already have descriptions. The description mentions filter concepts like violations_only and sort options but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: bulk web-wide price and MAP findings across a watchlist, reading already-collected results, not a live scan. It lists specific outputs (source count, cheapest price, violations, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like find_product_across_web.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: 'where is my whole watchlist cheaper off Amazon', 'web-wide MAP across everything I track', 'which tracked products are undercut on the open web'. It also states when not to use: for a live single-product check, use find_product_across_web instead.

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