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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld annotations: it discloses what is deliberately excluded (phones, e-mails), redirects the agent to source_url for contact and participation terms, clarifies that applications go directly to the seller and not through LICHIDARE.MD, and defines the applications_closed=true flag. This is exactly the extra behavior an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and returned fields, then the exclusion note and the applications_closed definition. Dense but every clause carries information; only slight trimming would help.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — and it does, listing the returned fields and the important omission of contact data. Combined with the flag semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 each parameter (id, lang, max_lots) is already documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description mentions lots and language only as return content, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (returns the details of) and resource (a LICHIDARE.MD listing by id), then enumerates exactly what is returned: description, lots with starting prices, auction date, seller role/name, official source. This is distinguishable at a glance from search_listings and upcoming_auctions.

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 rich context about what the listing contains and how participation works, but never states explicitly when to use this tool versus search_listings or the other siblings. Usage is implied (fetch one known listing by id) rather than instructed.

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