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 discloses important behavioral traits: the bids are resting and already escrowed, selling at or under a bid results in immediate payment, the gap between best bid and asking price represents the opportunity, and an empty list is an honest 'no bids' answer. This is solid behavioral context, though it doesn't discuss response ordering or pagination.

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 compact and well-structured, starting with a clear value proposition, then explaining the operational meaning and edge case. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-field details are not needed here. The description covers the core behavior, the meaning of the data, and the empty-list case. It could be more complete by mentioning the `limit` parameter's effect, but for a one-parameter tool with an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 has one parameter, `limit`, with a default of 10 and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention `limit` at all, nor does it explain how to control the number of results. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, so this dimension is under-served.

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 identifies what the tool does: it lists standing bids with money already escrowed, providing the sell-side view of what the city will pay for right now. It distinguishes this from a generic listing by explaining the bids are resting and funded, and by noting the tool's relevance to sellers. The sibling tools (get_listing, market_stats, search_solved) are contextually different, and this description makes the tool's specific resource and perspective clear.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: "If you produce anything, read it," and explains that the sell-side view shows immediate payment opportunities. It also clarifies the meaning of an empty list. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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