search_watches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about pagination, result caps, matching semantics, or ordering. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap, though an output schema exists to handle return values.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a two-parameter search tool.

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 present, return values need not be described, and both parameters are covered by the schema. What is missing is routing context against the many sibling watch tools, particularly list_watches, leaving the definition just barely sufficient.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented (query = 'Search term', tag = 'Optional tag name to narrow results'). The description's 'by URL or title' marginally informs what query matches but omits the tag parameter entirely, adding little beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search watches') plus the matching fields ('by URL or title'), which lets an agent understand the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_watches, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_watches, which is the obvious alternative for enumerating watches. It also doesn't note that the tag parameter can constrain results, so the routing logic is left entirely to inference.

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