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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds a genuinely load-bearing trait: a 5-minute result cache and the instruction to treat the current bid as a lower bound near close rather than a final price. It also discloses the upstream source URL pattern, giving the agent a way to judge freshness and provenance.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with scope and closing with the staleness caveat that matters most operationally. The trailing 'Sourced from .../en/c/{category_path}' line is the weakest sentence but still conveys provenance cheaply.

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 3-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description names the return fields (live bid, bid count, location, close time), supplies the prerequisite, and warns about cache lag. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so page size (48), country semantics and the category_path format are already documented in the schema. The description restates the category_path provenance rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 + scope: 'Browse CURRENTLY-OPEN lots in one Troostwijk Auctions category', with the domain (industrial equipment, vehicles, real estate, insolvency liquidations) and geography enumerated. The 'CURRENTLY-OPEN' qualifier and the category scoping distinguish it cleanly from siblings troostwijk_sold_comps (past sales), troostwijk_lot_detail (single lot) and troostwijk_categories (path discovery).

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?

Explicit prerequisite routing: 'Get category_path from troostwijk_categories first', which tells the agent the required call sequence. The 'CURRENTLY-OPEN' framing implies the split with sold-comps, but the description never names troostwijk_lot_detail or troostwijk_sold_comps as alternatives, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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