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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses what each row contains, that pricing follows a published formula, and that results are sorted by discount percentage descending. It does not cover limit/pagination defaults or kind filtering behavior, but it provides meaningful transparency beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core resource, then adds row semantics and sort order, and the documentation link is compact and useful.

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?

The description covers row composition and sort order, but there is no output schema and no annotations. It omits mention of the kind enum (listing/dutch_auction/offer), limit behavior, and how this tool relates to get_orders or get_listing_details, leaving an agent with some inference work.

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 60%, and the description adds useful meaning to discountPct/minDiscountPct by explaining the relationship between ask, underlying contents, and discount, plus linking to the pricing formula. However, kind and limit are not addressed in the description, so their semantics rely on enum values and parameter names alone.

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 resource (active listings/auctions), the scope (a market), and key row semantics (ask, underlying contents priced at market, discountPct, sorted by discount). It is specific and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_orders or get_listing_details.

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?

'Active listings/auctions for a market' implies the primary use case: retrieving currently open listings/auctions for a given market. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it state exclusions such as 'use get_orders for order-level details'.

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