Watch a listing

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

Adds persistence information ('Persists across restarts') and a usage hint ('One polite request to seed') beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description complements rather than contradicts them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant wording. The phrase 'One polite request to seed' is slightly cryptic but conveys a meaningful behavioral hint. Overall compact and efficient.

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 two-parameter tool with idempotent and non-destructive annotations, the description covers what is tracked, persistence, and the companion reporting tool. Since no output schema is provided, pointing to check_watched_listings for results is sufficient guidance.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not add meaning beyond them. The description's mention of tracking changes repeats schema language, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 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 'Track' and resource 'specific listing', with clear purpose 'price changes and sold/removed status'. It also distinguishes from sibling check_watched_listings by noting that tool reports what changed, making the role of this tool unambiguous.

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?

Names the companion tool check_watched_listings as the reporting mechanism, implicitly defining the workflow: watch first, then check changes. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or use unwatch_listing, but the intended context is clear.

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