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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results are ranked by live lot count, and the tool returns current open-sale metrics. 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?

Three compact sentences with no filler: the deliverable is front-loaded, usage guidance follows, and the ranking rule closes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data is returned, how results are sorted, when to use the tool, and where to continue. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the described return fields.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (limit, state, keyword) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual framing, such as using state/niche to find auctioneers, but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 a precise deliverable: which US auction houses Pipeworx covers and their current live activity. It enumerates returned fields (name, home state, open sales, total lots) and states the ranking criterion, clearly distinguishing it from event/search-focused auction siblings.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: to find auctioneers by state or niche, with a concrete example. It also provides a downstream routing hint to us_auction_events or us_auctions_search. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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