check_oauth_watchlist

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

With no annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it monitors a curated watchlist (with examples), explains the risk scenario, and mentions output (matched apps and revocation steps). However, it lacks technical details like error handling, rate limits, or non-destructive nature.

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 multiple sentences but well-structured: purpose first, then risk context, then output, then pricing. Every sentence adds value, though the pricing details could be considered extraneous for an agent but are informative.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, what it returns, and even cost information. It enables an agent to decide when to use it.

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% (only email parameter), and the description adds meaning by explaining how the email is used (checking its connected OAuth apps against the watchlist) and what the watchlist contains, going beyond the schema description.

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 verb (check), the resource (high-risk OAuth-capable SaaS apps connected to an email account), and the outcome (appeared in recent data breaches). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_breach (general breach checking) by specifying the OAuth and watchlist focus.

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 implies the tool should be used when concerned about OAuth token compromise from breached SaaS apps, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like check_breach. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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