get_watches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It proactively states 'Runs politely and sequentially; uncached ids take ~4s each,' which informs an agent about rate-limiting politeness, sequential execution, and timing expectations. This is useful context that goes beyond the schema, though it does not cover error handling or failure modes.

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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get full details...') followed by key behavioral constraints. Every clause adds value: the shortlist limit, the politeness, and the timing. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to call it accurately. It covers the scope (shortlist, limit), the behavior (polite, sequential, timing), and the purpose. It might benefit from mentioning return format, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'ids' parameter with details on limits and cost. The description adds the behavioral nuance of politeness and timing, which indirectly touches on request cost, but does not add new meaning to the parameter itself. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details for a shortlist of up to 10 Chrono24 listing ids.' It explicitly limits to a shortlist of up to 10, distinguishing it from get_watch (singular) and search_listings by focusing on fetching details for multiple known ids.

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 retrieving a batch of up to 10 listing ids, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_watch (for single ids) or search_listings (for finding listings). The mention of 'shortlist' hints at a use case but does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternative tools.

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