chrono24_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (title, price, seller type, etc.) and notes that filter values are echoed back in the response's filters field. It also states the requirement for query or brand. This is transparent about core behavior, though it doesn't cover pagination details or edge cases. The disclosed behavior does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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, moderately dense paragraph. It front-loads the main purpose, then explains modes, return format, and filters. While not overly long, it could be split into clearer sections, but every sentence adds useful information without redundancy. It is efficient and structured logically.

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?

Given 15 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential usage: the two search modes, the requirement for query/brand, the return format, and the source of filter values. It does not explain pagination behavior or sort semantics, but these are documented in the schema with descriptions. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in common cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the relationship between brand and model, the 'at least one of query or brand' requirement, and that filter values are discoverable from chrono24-facets. This helps an agent understand parameter semantics without reading the schema alone.

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 the tool's function: 'Search Chrono24 watch listings.' It specifies two modes (free-text keyword or brand/model browsing), details the output format (normalized result cards with specific fields), and distinguishes itself from the sibling chrono24-listing by referencing it as the next step for the listing URL. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 (searching listings by keyword or brand/model) and gives a critical constraint: 'At least one of query or brand is required.' It also routes the agent to chrono24-facets for filter values and to chrono24-listing for the listing URL, implying a workflow. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with chrono24_autocomplete, but the context is clear.

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