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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data is sourced from troostwijkauctions.com/en/a/{auction_slug} and lists what the returned detail contains, which is useful context beyond the schema/annotations. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but those are not critical for this read-only lookup.

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 sentences, with the purpose and return fields first, followed by parameter derivation and lot-selection guidance. Every sentence carries information and there is no repetitive 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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the input provenance, the lot-selection rule, and the main return fields. It leaves minor ambiguity about what happens if display_id is omitted in a multi-lot auction and does not define sale-outcome values, but these are small gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents both fields; the description meaningfully extends this by explaining how to derive auction_slug from a URL ('part after /en/a/') and when to pass or omit display_id. That gives agents a practical selection rule beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Full detail for one Troostwijk lot within its auction' and enumerates the returned data (auction description, current/final bid, sale outcome, bid count, location), giving a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling search/category/comps tools by framing this as the single-lot detail step fed by 'a search/sold-comps result url'.

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 explains the prerequisite: auction_slug is taken from the part after /en/a/ in a search/sold-comps result URL, and it tells when to pass display_id (multi-lot auction) versus omit it (single-lot auction). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X,' so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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