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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the open_only fallback behavior (auto-attaching recently_closed/recent_results), the status values, the different behavior for general assets vs nps categories, and the returned fields. No contradictions exist.

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 long but every sentence carries distinct information: purpose, category distinctions, query syntax, open_only behavior, fallback semantics, and return fields. It is organized with line breaks and structured content rather than redundant prose.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what the tool returns, how filtering works, what each category means, and the important fallback behavior. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly for both general asset sales and nps land cases.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does for q, kind, and open_only, including exact kind values and q syntax. The limit parameter is not mentioned at all, which prevents a 5, but the covered parameters receive far more meaning than the schema alone provides.

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 verb and resource: it lists public-agency asset sale/rent announcements and National Property Administration land lease/sale notices. It also enumerates the asset categories (vehicles, equipment, scrap, land, stalls) and explicitly separates these from government e-procurement, so an agent can distinguish this tool from procurement-focused siblings.

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 operational guidance: when to use open_only, how the False setting changes results, and that nps_* categories are not covered by government e-procurement. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate invocation.

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