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

The annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full burden. It usefully discloses the minimum increment rule (5%, min 50 GC) and that the note surfaces in the auction feed, but omits the critical economics of a mutation: whether coins are escrowed, refunded when outbid, or lost, and whether a bid is reversible.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the hard constraint. Minimal waste; only 'friendly' is decorative rather than informative.

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 currency-spending mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should state what comes back (confirmation, current high bid, new standing) and where the lot identifier originates. It covers the bidding rule well but leaves the agent guessing at the post-call state.

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 only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates well for two of three parameters: it establishes that amount is Gallery Coins and is subject to the 5%/50 GC floor, and it explains that note is a short text shown in the auction feed. The 'lot' parameter is left unexplained, with no hint that it comes from get_lot or list_salon_lots.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Bid Gallery Coins on an Open Salon lot,' which names the currency, the action, and the target scope (an Open Salon lot). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_lot or list_salon_lots, but the combination of action and constraint makes the tool unmistakable.

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 is implied rather than stated: you bid when you want a lot, subject to the 5%/50 GC floor. The bidding rule is a validation constraint, not guidance about when to use this versus read-only siblings, and prerequisites (membership, wallet balance, lot must be open) are left to inference.

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