reverb_makes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add non-obvious behavior: the list's completeness, its size (2,795 values as of a dated snapshot), and the deliberate absence of a model list because Reverb's /api/listings silently ignores a model filter. That negative disclosure is genuinely useful. Auth, rate limits, and return format are not covered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every sentence earns its place, including the model-list caveat that preempts a wrong agent assumption. The third sentence is long, but the length is justified by the non-obvious design rationale.

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 zero-parameter enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how large it is, and what is deliberately excluded, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around freshness/refetch cadence and return shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately spends its text on the returned value space rather than on nonexistent inputs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List Reverb's manufacturer/make list") and immediately qualifies what the list is: the value space reverb-search's make parameter accepts. It is distinguishable from siblings like reverb_categories and reverb_search without opening a schema.

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 tells the agent the list exists to supply valid values for reverb-search's make parameter, which is clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly say 'call this before reverb_search' or give any exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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