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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), lowering the bar. The description adds useful context: output is facts-only with no images, and raw listings come from sanctioned federal sources while comps span the full market. It does not disclose pagination behavior or result shape, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause about sold-price comps is slightly tangential but serves disambiguation, so it 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?

With 12 parameters, no required fields, 42% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers filters and data scope but omits pagination (limit/offset) and sort semantics beyond what the schema states. It is minimally complete for a search tool but leaves gaps an agent would want.

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 42%, so the description must compensate, and it does list the main filter axes (state, category, keyword, price, ZIP distance), which map to q/state/category/priceMin/priceMax/zip/radiusMiles. However, several params (limit, offset, source, country) and the max-100 limit are left entirely to the schema, so the compensation is only partial.

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 verb (search) and resource (live GSA federal-surplus auction listings) with a scope qualifier (facts only, no images). It also implicitly separates itself from the sold-comps siblings by noting comps 'span the full market,' but does not name an alternative tool directly, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 lists filter capabilities (state, category, keyword, price, distance) but gives no when-to-use versus siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. A small hint about sold-price comps exists, but it is a data-provenance statement rather than routing guidance.

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