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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds genuine behavioral context: the keyword search is closed to crawlers, so it reads the artist index page; results are per-maker and limited to the 24 most recent past lots of the reported total. This discloses important limitations and data-source workarounds beyond the structured 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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the purpose and return fields, then explains the crawler constraint, then the optional filter. Every sentence adds information without repetition or 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 tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (realized price, estimate, currency, lot/sale number, saleroom, department, sale date) and flags the key limitation (24 most recent reported lots). Combined with annotations, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a meaningful semantic: that the 24-lot limit is not merely a client-side cap but the total accessible dataset per maker, and that category narrowing matches department/saleroom/sale/lot title. However, most parameter-specific meaning remains in the schema, so this is a modest increment over baseline.

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-resource pairing: 'Look up realized prices for an artist or maker in Phillips' past-auction results.' It names the resource (Phillips past-auction results), the output (realized price, estimate, currency, etc.), and distinguishes itself from the sibling phillips_lot_details by focusing on per-maker recent lots rather than individual lot 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?

The description provides clear context for use: it is for looking up realized prices per maker and can be narrowed by category/department with examples. It explains why it resolves names via the artist index rather than keyword search, which sets expectations. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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