list_authority_watch_targets

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the returned authorities are *resolved* (indirection already expanded) and *exact*, not patterns or rules. It says nothing about paging behavior even though the tool exposes limit and cursor.

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 tight sentence with the scoping constraint front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the same brevity leaves gaps handled elsewhere in scoring.

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?

There is no output schema and only three parameters, so the description does not need to explain return shapes. However, with 0% parameter documentation, an agent still cannot know how to page through results or what 'resolved' implies about the returned objects versus raw watch target patterns.

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 carries the full burden and mostly fails: it only implies that watchlist_id selects the watchlist. The limit (1-100) and cursor parameters — and the fact that results are paginated at all — are not mentioned or explained anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the exact resolved authorities') scoped to 'this watchlist,' which separates it from the global sibling list_authorities. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the near-named add_authority_watch_target/remove_authority_watch_target, but the read verb and watchlist scope are 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the implied read of the current watchlist membership, and no alternatives named (e.g., list_authorities for the global registry, get_watchlist for the watchlist itself). Nothing says when this tool is the wrong choice.

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