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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals sorting, the discountPct computation, and the reference formula for underlying pricing. It does not mention pagination, empty-result behavior, authentication, or that this is a read-only operation, which are meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then efficiently describes row semantics and sort order, so every sentence 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?

For a moderate-complexity read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential return semantics and ordering but omits guidance on parameter selection, especially `kind` and `limit`, and does not help distinguish this tool from several similar siblings. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 only 60%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented `kind` and `limit` parameters. It does define `discountPct` conceptually, which slightly illuminates `minDiscountPct`, but it adds little meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 tool returns active listings/auctions for a market, and specifies the row contents (ask, underlying contents, discountPct) and sort order. This differentiates it reasonably from siblings like get_listing_details or get_orders, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'for a market' implies the primary use case, and the sorting/filtering details suggest it is a market-level listing browse tool. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_listing_details, get_orders, or other sibling listing tools, leaving selection largely to inference.

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