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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the default filtering of connection/message watchers, the effect of includeAccountMaintenance, and the returned fields. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful contextual behavior without repeating annotation data.

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 compact and front-loaded: main action first, then return content, then filtering behavior, then routing to sibling tools. Every sentence contributes meaning and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what fields are returned and how filtering works. It also points to the right sibling tools for deeper detail and metrics. A minor gap is that includeArchived's default behavior is not stated, but the overall context is sufficient for a list operation.

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 burden for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains includeAccountMaintenance, but workspaceId is only implied via 'of a workspace' and includeArchived is not addressed at all. Both are inferable from names, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('signal agents (audience intelligence watchers) of a workspace'), then explains what signal agents are and what the response contains. It differentiates this list operation from the detail and stats tools by explicitly naming them.

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 gives concrete selection guidance: use campaignstack_get_signal_agent for full details and campaignstack_get_signal_agent_stats for dashboard metrics. It also explains when the includeAccountMaintenance flag matters and directs account-maintenance watchers to campaignstack_get_account_maintenance, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to choose.

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