get_watch

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 response components (reference, specs, box/papers, dealer info, photos, URL), which is useful, but it does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid or missing ID), rate limits, or any operational constraints. For a read-only fetch this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, followed by a concise list of returned details. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary elaboration—every word earns its place.

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 single-item fetch with no output schema, the description clearly states what will be returned (types of details, photos, URL). It does not mention potential failure cases (e.g., 'null if not found'), but the operation is simple and the description covers the essential information an agent needs to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter fully described (Chrono24 listing id, digits, extraction from URL). The description merely repeats 'by id' without adding novel semantics. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a concrete resource ('full details for one Chrono24 listing by id') and enumerates the included content (reference, specs, box/papers, dealer info, photos, canonical URL). It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_listings and get_watches (plural) by focusing on a single listing by ID.

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 phrase 'by id' establishes that this tool is for retrieving a specific listing when the ID is known, implying it is not for searching or listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear and unambiguous.

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