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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating it only filters and does not rank or recommend, that status defaults to 'open', and that min_remaining_hours is ignored when status != 'open'. It could additionally state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects, though the wording strongly implies a query.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the non-ranking clarification and default behavior. The 'Useful for' and return-shape lines earn their place. Minor redundancy exists between the 'Does not rank' sentence and the later 'user chooses what to act on' line.

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 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description compensates well by documenting the return shape, defaults, and edge behavior for min_remaining_hours. It could be more explicit about how multiple criteria combine (AND semantics) and what happens when no matches are found, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds collective semantics beyond the schema: all filter parameters are optional, unspecified parameters impose no constraint, and the default 'open' status means actionable auctions only. This centralizes behavior that would otherwise have to be inferred parameter-by-parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns Gavel auctions filtered by the criteria you supply.' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from ranking, scoring, or recommending, making clear it only filters. This prevents confusion with action-oriented siblings like prepare_bid_calldata.

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 gives a clear 'Useful for' context: narrowing a long auction list by yield, duration, and LTV preferences. It explains that all filters are optional and unspecified means no constraint, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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