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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that the API silently ignores non-Order filters, which is an important behavioral quirk not captured elsewhere. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, but that's a minor gap given the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the key constraint about filters. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema existing, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the historical range and the routing to goldin_search. It could mention that the Order parameter is required or its exact casing, but otherwise it's complete for a simple one-param tool.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'Order'. The description explains that 'order (asc/desc)' is the only real filter and that other filters are ignored, which adds critical meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not state the parameter's exact name ('Order' vs 'order') or that it's required, leaving ambiguity. Given the low coverage, the description should fully compensate but misses these details.

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+resource: 'Goldin's complete auction event history, back to 2012' with the exact fields returned (title, type, status, start/end window, buyer's premium). It distinguishes itself from lot-level tools by instructing the agent to pass an id to goldin_search for lots.

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?

It gives clear context for use (getting auction events, browsing lots via goldin_search), but does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool. The guidance is strong but lacks exclusions.

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