watch_ashby_receipt

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

Annotations supply idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds the safety constraint 'This never submits the form.' It also hints at side effects ('record the official success message for this job'), but never says whether the call blocks/polls, how retries work, or what state is written — notable gaps given no readOnlyHint is declared.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the non-submission guarantee is placed where it will be read. The phrasing is slightly awkward ('for this job', 'when a challenge clears') but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety constraint is covered. Still, for a tool with a timeout parameter that likely blocks or polls and may record state, the description omits operational behavior an agent needs before invoking it.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining 'site' and 'timeout_seconds'. It does neither: the meaning of 'site', its accepted format, and the blocking/timeout behavior implied by timeout_seconds are all undocumented.

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 names the resource (the Ashby form / receipt) and a loose verb ('watch'), and adds a couple of condition clauses, but 'watch' is ambiguous between polling, blocking until timeout, and passively observing. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_ashby_receipt, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to reach for.

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 offers trigger context ('when a challenge clears or a submitted application has no receipt yet'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it gives no exclusions and no comparison to get_ashby_receipt or inspect_application_challenge, leaving the choice between siblings implicit.

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