Get model buying guide

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

Annotations already declare this read-only and open-world, and the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: one polite request, 24-hour caching, and approximate nature of prices. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the resource and include a concrete example, while the cache and courtesy note occupies its own compact clause. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

Given the read-only annotation, fully documented schema, and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough for correct invocation: what content to expect, an example, and relevant caching behavior. Any routing nuance with siblings is a minor enhancement rather than a gap.

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 input schema already fully documents both required parameters with accepted forms and examples, reaching 100% coverage. The description's Submariner example illustrates output content rather than adding parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource: Chrono24's editorial buying guide for a model, and lists concrete contents: history, cost insight, investment notes, and a per-reference approximate price table. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing, price, and search tools.

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 when the tool is relevant—when an editorial, model-level buying guide is wanted rather than live listings or price stats—but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. The cache and 'polite request' note addresses request behavior, not tool selection.

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