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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description goes beyond this by detailing the exact filtering logic (only lots with saleTerm CLOSED_RESERVE_PRICE_ALLOCATED or GUARANTEED_SALE_CLOSED), the meaning of 'sold', the source URL, and the trade-off of max_auctions cost. It also explicitly states non-sold lots are never reported as a price, adding valuable behavioral context.

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 yet efficient, with three sentences that each carry distinct value: the core purpose, the verification/filtering logic, and the scanning/source details. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and avoids 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?

Given the tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the data source, the filtering rules, the sale statuses, and the cost behavior of max_auctions. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool 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 each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely references the optional filters and the max_auctions cost, which are already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns realized sale-price comps from recently-closed auctions, specifically only sold lots (outcome:"sold") and explicitly filters out reserve-not-met, declined, and pending lots. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like troostwijk_search_lots and troostwijk_lot_detail by focusing on realized prices, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (when you need realized sale prices from closed auctions) and describes optional filters, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, so the usage context is clear but not fully articulated.

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