List watches

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'never live', 'as of the last watch_refresh', and 'nothing is fetched', making the operation's side-effect-free, non-live nature unmistakable.

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 one information-dense sentence, with the primary purpose at the front and important caveats at the end. Every clause contributes meaning: output fields, staleness, and non-fetching behavior.

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 read tool with no output schema, this description supplies the output list, the data freshness behavior, and the absence of side effects. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool without further lookup.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description adds value by enumerating the output fields, including free-tier usage, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clearly identified resource ('every tracked item') plus a detailed field list, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It is clearly distinct from siblings like watch_add, watch_remove, and watch_refresh.

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 clearly explains when this list should be trusted: prices are from the last watch_refresh and never live, telling the agent to use watch_refresh or price_check for fresher data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the staleness caveat provides strong usage context.

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