chrono24_facets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that each value comes with a live listing count, which is a useful behavioral detail. But it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, or the response structure. For a simple fetch tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the supported groups. While the list of nine groups is somewhat lengthy, it is necessary to convey the exact scope. There is minimal fluff, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose, the parameter, and the output (values with counts). It doesn't specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure), but given the simplicity and the reference to chrono24_search, an agent can infer enough to call it correctly. The lack of output schema is partially mitigated by the description's clarity.

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 schema provides a 100% description for the 'group' parameter, including an enum of all valid values. The tool description reinforces the purpose by listing the filter groups in natural language and explaining they are advanced-search filter params, adding context beyond the bare schema label. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description doesn't significantly exceed it.

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 ('Get'), a resource ('a Chrono24 search filter's accepted values'), and scope (each with live listing counts). It also distinguishes itself from chrono24_search by framing itself as the discovery endpoint for that search's filter params, making its role 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?

It explicitly references chrono24-search as the consumer of these filter values, implying this tool is used to obtain valid filter options before performing a search. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other sibling tools beyond chrono24_search, leaving some inference to the agent.

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