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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns live bid data, indicates the source URL, and notes the dependency on troostwijk_categories. 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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: scope, return fields, prerequisite, and source. The most important constraint (currently-open, one category) is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only browse tool, the description is largely complete: it names the source, the required category-prefetch step, the kind of results returned, and the schema covers pagination and country filtering. Lack of an output schema is mitigated by listing the key per-lot fields, though it does not describe pagination behavior in prose.

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 all three parameters. The description adds some value by telling agents to source category_path from troostwijk_categories, but it does not materially enrich the meaning of page or country beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('CURRENTLY-OPEN lots in one Troostwijk Auctions category'), and further specifies scope (European categories, countries). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like troostwijk_lot_detail and troostwijk_sold_comps by emphasizing currently-open lots versus sold/detail lookups.

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?

Gives clear contextual guidance: use this for open lots in one category, and explicitly instructs the agent to obtain category_path from troostwijk_categories first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the currently-open framing and sibling names make the intended use clear.

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