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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds real value by stating that every call rechecks source publication, permission, freshness and status, and that coverage is partial — a meaningful caveat about result completeness. It stops short of describing ordering, total counts, or what happens past page 5000.

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 scope constraint and pagination rule are front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinct information — coverage caveat, refresh behavior, and field meanings. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description usefully disambiguates four result-money fields and warns that coverage is partial, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results and paginate. The gap is the undocumented propertyType filter and no note on result ordering.

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 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents q, page and country. The description restates the 24-per-page and nextPage behavior rather than adding to it, and never mentions propertyType, whose enum values carry no schema description at all. Its field semantics (startingBid, minimumBid, valuation, deposit) concern outputs, not inputs, so they do not raise this dimension.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Search published official real-estate auctions") plus a distinguishing scope constraint: it works "without a catalog ID," implicitly contrasting with a catalog-ID-based lookup such as get_auction. It does not name any sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage context is implied by "without a catalog ID" and "Coverage is partial," which tells an agent this is the discovery path rather than a precise lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative for retrieving a known auction by identifier.

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