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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the behavioral load, and it does well: it discloses the auction duration, the closing timezone, the 90/10 sale split, and the no-bid outcome (you keep the artwork). It omits whether the artwork must be currently unlisted or whether relisting has any upfront cost, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and price range, followed by timing, economics, and the failure case. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers price bounds, duration, payout mechanics, and the no-bid outcome, which is nearly everything needed to call it confidently. The only real gap is the meaning and source of submission_id and what a successful call returns.

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 50%: the 'start' parameter is documented, and the description usefully adds its valid range (100-100,000 GC), which the schema lacks. However, 'submission_id' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to infer it comes from my_submissions or my_collection.

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 states a specific verb and resource: relisting a painting you already own into the Open Salon auction at a chosen price. The phrase 'a painting you own' cleanly separates it from submit_artwork (new submissions) and place_bid (bidding), so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

It establishes the precondition (you must own the painting) and the operating envelope (price 100-100,000 GC, roughly one-day run, 8 pm Sydney close). It never names an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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