chrono24_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'List[s]' models, implying a read-only operation, and explicitly guarantees completeness: 'every accepted value for a brand is obtainable from this API.' It also positions the tool as a discovery endpoint, which conveys its intended role. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or invalid-brand behavior, but for a simple list endpoint these omissions are minor.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second clarifies the output and its downstream use, and the third justifies the endpoint's role as the discovery mechanism. Each sentence earns its place. It is slightly wordy in the third sentence, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is low-complexity: one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations. The description covers what the tool does, what it returns (slugs), how the output connects to chrono24-search, and why this endpoint is authoritative for accepted model values. It does not explain error cases or explicitly instruct the user to call chrono24-brands first, but these are minor gaps given the simple contract and schema coverage.

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 already documents the single 'brand' parameter with 100% coverage, including its origin ('Brand slug from chrono24-brands'). The description reinforces that the tool is 'for a brand' but adds little new semantic detail about the parameter itself. The main value is explaining the output's use as the model parameter in chrono24-search, which is output-related, not input-related. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Chrono24 models for a brand.' It goes further than a bare statement by giving concrete examples (Rolex Submariner, Rolex Datejust), explaining the output contains slugs usable as the model parameter on chrono24-search, and framing itself as 'the discovery endpoint for that parameter.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like chrono24_brands and chrono24_search.

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?

The description explains when to use the tool: when you need all accepted model values for a given brand, and notes the output feeds directly into chrono24-search as the model parameter. It also implies a prerequisite by referencing brand slugs from chrono24-brands in the schema. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., chrono24_autocomplete) or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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