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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool validates inputs against live auction state, conditionally includes an ERC-20 approval, returns an unsigned blueprint, does not dispatch transactions, and requires the user to review and sign. It also states that Aletheia does not hold keys, which is important safety context for an agent.

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 organized into three tight, front-loaded paragraphs: the core action, the tool's boundary and relationship to find_auctions_matching_criteria, and the domain rules plus safety responsibilities. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (unsigned transaction blueprint), the validation behavior, the allowance prerequisite, and the user's signing responsibility. An agent has enough context to decide whether and how to invoke the tool correctly, and the only unspecified detail—exact output object shape—is not essential for calling it.

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 schema already covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: repayment_amount is explained in the context of reverse-auction competition and bid-step undercutting, and lender_address is tied to balance/allowance reading. It does not add much for auction_id or network beyond what the schema states, so a 4 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's specific purpose: it builds an unsigned transaction blueprint for placing a bid on a Gavel auction, including the prerequisite ERC-20 approval when allowance is insufficient. This distinguishes it from the other prepare_* siblings that handle collateral claims, refunds, auction creation, and loan repayment.

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 to use find_auctions_matching_criteria first when the user needs help choosing an auction, and it states that this tool does not choose an auction, rate, or size. It also explains the reverse-auction bidding rule—lower repayment is more competitive and must undercut the current best by the bid step—so the agent knows when a bid is valid.

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