bonhams_auction_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses default status behavior, the exclusion of ended auctions, the 'past' archive mode, and that no credentials are required. It does not cover pagination, rate limits, or response shape, but for a read-only search tool this is a solid behavioral disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences are nearly redundant ('Search Bonhams auctions' / 'Searches and filters Bonhams' auctions'). The third sentence carries the valuable context, yet the opening repetition prevents a top score.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers important defaults, data source, and auth requirements, while the schema documents each parameter. It is still incomplete because it does not describe what is returned, pagination behavior, or how this search relates to sibling lot/detail tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning to the status parameter by explaining that 'upcoming' excludes ended auctions and 'past' browses the full archive. Other parameters are left to their already-detailed schema descriptions, so the added value is focused but genuine.

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 clear verb-resource relation ('Search Bonhams auctions') and adds filter semantics through status defaults and archive scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling bonhams_lot_search or bonhams_auction_lots, but the auction-level scope is reasonably evident from the name and description.

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?

Provides concrete selection context: default 'upcoming' excludes ended auctions and 'past' browses the full historical archive, plus the credential-free public API note. However, it never names alternatives such as bonhams_lot_search or bonhams_auction_detail, so explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance is missing.

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