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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and mutability. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it notes that the realized price is included 'where Sotheby's publishes it,' indicating a caveat about availability. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists fields, followed by a short note about the required parameter origin. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-lot detail tool with no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields (catalogue description, provenance, literature, images, estimate, realized price), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. Combined with clear annotations and a single well-documented parameter, nothing critical is missing.

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 100% — the schema already states that `lot_id` is a UUID from sothebys_results_search's `lot_id` field. The description merely repeats 'Needs the `lot_id` from sothebys_results_search,' which adds no new semantic meaning. Per the baseline for high coverage, this stays at 3.

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 ('Full detail') and resource ('one Sotheby's lot'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (catalogue description, provenance, literature, etc.). It clearly differentiates from the sibling sothebys_results_search, which presumably returns search results rather than full 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 explicitly states the prerequisite: it needs the `lot_id` from sothebys_results_search. This implies that the tool should be used after obtaining a lot_id from the search tool, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare with alternatives. It gives clear context but no exclusions.

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