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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the sign-in/API-key requirement and the dependency on the market's sold-price comp archive. It stops short of describing behavior when comps are absent for a lot.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool produces, followed by the id-format instruction and the auth prerequisite. The middle clause ('from any source, in any market with sold-price comps (valued against that market's comp archive)') is dense but each element carries meaning.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload shape, the id convention, and the auth requirement. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior (missing comps, invalid ids) rather than anything blocking a correct call.

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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying the expected format: the lot id as it appears in a govauctions.app lot URL. That is the one detail an agent could not infer from the bare string schema.

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?

States a specific resource and what it returns (estimated value, effective bid, discount, source link) and constrains scope to one live lot with sold-price comps. It implicitly separates itself from raw-comp siblings like get_sold_comps, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a prerequisite ('Requires sign-in or an API key') and implies applicability (single live lot, any source/market that has comps), which hints at when the tool works. It does not say when to prefer this over get_sold_comps, get_price_trend, or get_listing, nor what happens when no comps exist.

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