govauctions.app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about valuation against a comp archive, which is useful but not extensive. No behavioral pitfalls or additional constraints are disclosed.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and outputs. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant 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 low complexity (1 param, no nested schemas) and annotations that cover safety, the description provides enough context for basic use. However, it lacks details on output structure or format, which would be helpful for an agent processing the response.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', and the description does not explicitly describe the parameter. The mention of 'live GSA listing' hints that id is a listing ID, but this is implicit and insufficient for an agent to understand expected format or source.

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 it provides a 'Flip Score resale signal' for a live GSA listing, listing outputs: estimated value, effective bid, and discount. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings (get_listing, get_sold_comps, search_listings) by focusing on this specific metric.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be preferable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating no side effects and an open world assumption. The description adds 'facts only,' which clarifies that the tool returns factual data rather than computed scores, but does not describe other behaviors like authentication, rate limits, or error cases. The additional context is minor, making a score of 3 appropriate.

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 sentence of 10 words, conveying the essential information without any redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description is adequate but not rich. It lacks details on error handling, return structure, or what 'facts only' implies about the output. For a straightforward get-by-id tool, this is minimally viable but could be improved with more context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by its id,' which explains that the required 'id' parameter is a listing identifier. However, it does not specify the format, constraints, or source of the ID. The added value is modest, justifying a score of 3.

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 'Get one live GSA listing by its id (facts only).' It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'listing', and the scope 'one ... by its id'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_listings, get_flip_score, and get_sold_comps, which operate on different resources or actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context about the suitability compared to search_listings (which might return multiple listings) or other get tools. Usage is only implied by the resource and identifier.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: it is free, requires no API key, and is rate-limited. These go beyond the annotations, though error handling or response format details are missing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose and free/rate-limited note. No wasted 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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the output structure (percentiles) but lacks details on optional parameters, error cases, or rate limit specifics. Adequate but not thorough.

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 only 33% (only 'q' has a description). The description does not explain the 'country' enum (always US) or 'category' parameter. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, despite low coverage.

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 resource ('sold comps'), specifying the output (percentiles) and scope ('full US government-surplus market'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_listing and search_listings by focusing on sold price statistics rather than listings or flip scores.

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 use when needing sold price stats and notes that it is free and rate-limited, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_flip_score, search_listings) or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by noting the tool returns 'facts only — no images' and explains the data sources ('raw listings cover sanctioned federal sources; sold-price comps span the full market'), providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the main action and filters. No filler or redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 9 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers primary filters but lacks pagination details and does not describe the return format. It mentions data sources but could be more complete. Adequate but with gaps.

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 low (22%). The description mentions filters for state, category, keyword, and price, covering key parameters but omitting pagination (limit, offset) and source/country. It adds meaning for some but not all, partially compensating for the low schema coverage.

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 it searches live GSA federal-surplus auction listings with filters like state, category, keyword, and price. It specifies 'facts only — no images' and distinguishes between raw listings and sold-price comps, differentiating it from siblings like get_listing and get_sold_comps.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for searching live auction listings) and mentions available filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity against siblings.

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