list_users_hidden_progress_watched

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some useful context about pagination defaults and clamping, but it does not disclose auth requirements, scope of 'hidden' items, or any endpoint-specific behavior beyond the parameter docs.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the args are clearly structured. However, the 'type' line is filler, and the pagination paragraph reads like generic boilerplate rather than endpoint-specific guidance, so not every line earns its place.

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?

With an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is partially complete for a simple GET call. The main gaps are the undefined `type` values, the lack of explanation of what 'hidden progress watched' means, and no guidance distinguishing this from sync progress endpoints.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaningful explanations for extended, page, and especially limit with defaults and clamping behavior, but 'type: Query parameter' is tautological and provides no information about valid values or meaning.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get hidden progress items' with the endpoint GET /users/hidden/progress_watched. The name and first line convey the purpose, but the description does not differentiate it from closely related siblings such as list_sync_progress_watched or list_users_hidden_dropped.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_sync_progress_watched, list_users_hidden_dropped, or any condition for choosing this endpoint, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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