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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, establishing that this is a safe, closed-set read. The description adds the useful scoping detail that figures reflect the date of the last snapshot and cover a 90-day window for completed-auction share, which is genuinely extra context. It does not, however, explain the freshness of the snapshot or the output structure.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose (snapshot-date summary figures) followed by the specific metrics. No filler, though the list of metrics makes it slightly heavy.

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 parameter-free read-only statistics tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns and its temporal scope. Absence of an output schema would argue for a bit more on return structure, but the enumerated metrics largely compensate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals a parameter-free call by enumerating exactly which aggregates are returned.

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 names a specific output (aggregate catalog figures: lot counts by auction type and region, price reductions, share of completed auctions, median per-meter price) and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lot-lookup/search tools, which return individual records rather than statistics.

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?

Usage is implied — this is the tool for aggregate market numbers rather than individual lots — but the description never explicitly states when to prefer it or points to siblings. No when-not or alternatives are named.

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