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 the data source (26 official sources) and freshness ('live'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, pagination caps, or result shape for a 9-parameter search endpoint.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the scale/source claim is front-loaded before the filter capabilities. Nothing repeats the schema verbatim.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover pagination behavior, sort semantics, and roughly what a returned listing contains. It addresses only the filter surface, leaving the agent to guess at result shape and paging constraints.

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 44%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: naming keyword, category, state, ZIP-radius, and price filters maps onto query, category, state, zip/radius_miles, and price_max_usd. However it adds no meaning for the undocumented page, limit, and sort parameters (the sort enum in particular), leaving real gaps.

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 a precisely scoped resource (90,000+ live US government surplus auction listings from 26 official sources). The word 'live' implicitly distinguishes it from the historical-data siblings (sold_comps, get_sold_history), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 supported filters but never states when to choose this tool over siblings like get_listing (single-listing detail) or sold_comps (historical prices), nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and title.

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