get_watch_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the output contents but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, rate limits, or authorization requirements. It is adequate but lacks explicit transparency.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('Full specs and key figures') and efficiently lists the data categories. No superfluous words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description is complete enough to guide an agent, though it could mention that it returns info for a single model.

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% with a clear description for watch_id. The description adds value by specifying what the returned data includes (specs, prices), which goes beyond the schema's parameter description 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 returns 'Full specs and key figures for a watch model' and lists specific data types (references, complications, case/dial details, market price, retail price). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_watches (listing) or get_listing (specific listing).

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 implies usage for getting detailed info on a specific watch model, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_models or get_listing. No exclusions or context are provided.

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