Check watched listings

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

The description adds a substantive behavioral trait beyond the annotations: one polite request per listing not in the 30-min detail cache, indicating rate limiting and caching. The readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true annotations are consistent with the idea of making external requests, though the description doesn't detail authentication or additional side effects.

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?

Two compact sentences lead with the action and result, then add the key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is checked, what is reported, the request policy, and the intended scheduled-agent context. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the baseline is 4. The description's reference to 'every watched listing' provides the implicit selection scope, so no parameter documentation is necessary.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Re-check') and resource ('every watched listing') and states exactly what is reported: price changes and sold/removed status. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_watch, get_watches, and watch_listing.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as 'ideal for a scheduled agent' and explains the request policy per uncached listing, giving a clear recurring/maintenance use case. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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