appraise_watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a free option equivalent to a paid API, takes 10-15 seconds, and is captcha-protected via the form. It also states what it returns. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, context+timing, return result. No superfluous text. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Covers the main behavioral aspects (time, return value, relationship to paid API) well. With output schema present, the return structure is implied. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or data range, but acceptable.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds context (e.g., 'query' by name or reference) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Instant appraisal — estimated market value for a watch given its condition, delivery contents, and region.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like evaluate_deal, get_price_history, and get_market_index.

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 provides context on when to use the tool: 'This is the equivalent of the paid API's appraisal. It drives the real appraisal form...' and mentions the ~10-15s delay. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage in favor of sibling tools.

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