bonhams_lot_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that data is 'credential-free public data from bonhams.com's own search API,' includes historical/sold lots, and specifies default result ordering. It could additionally mention pagination or output shape, but for a read-only search tool the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 first sentence largely repeats the second ('Search Bonhams lots across every auction' / 'Searches Bonhams lots across every auction, current and historical'). The content is useful and front-loaded, but the redundancy makes it less tight than it could be.

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-optional-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description provides the key context: global scope, filters, source, auth requirements, and default ordering. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning return/pagination behavior, but the schema already documents page and per_page parameters.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds modest context like 'GBP-normalized estimate price range' and default sort behavior, but most parameter meaning is already fully covered in the schema, so the description adds little beyond the structured definitions.

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 and resource: 'Search Bonhams lots across every auction,' and further specifies current/historical/sold coverage. This clearly distinguishes it from per-auction or detail tools like bonhams_auction_lots and bonhams_lot_detail.

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?

'Across every auction' and 'optionally filtered by...' provide clear context for when a global lot search is appropriate. It also explains the default ordering behavior when no query or sort is supplied. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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