goldin_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses meaningful traps: the Auction pool and Fixed Price 'Private Sales' marketplace are disjoint, their certification/item_type values differ, their sort enums differ, and enum values must come from goldin-categories with a matching auction_type. It does not cover return format, pagination behavior, or auth, but the key behavioral caveats are explicit.

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?

Four sentences, dense and mostly non-redundant. The first sentence ('Search Goldin's lot auction inventory') mildly overlaps with the second, but there is no fluff and the critical caveats are front-loaded before the long parameter list.

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 10-parameter, 0-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main failure modes: optional filters, AND semantics, enum provenance, pool disjointness, and pool-specific sort behavior (defaults are left to the schema). Missing only return-value expectations and pagination shape, which is partly mitigated by the schema documenting page/page_size defaults.

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, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: all filters combine with AND, enum values must be sourced from goldin-categories using the same auction_type, and sort/certification/item_type enums differ between the two pools. This cross-parameter guidance is not present in the individual parameter descriptions.

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 Goldin's lot auction inventory') and enumerates the filter dimensions (keyword, category, sub_category, certification, item_type, auction_id) plus caller-selected sort order. The phrase 'lot inventory' distinguishes it from sibling tools like goldin_auctions or goldin_listing, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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: browse or search current inventory, every filter is optional, and filters combine with AND semantics. It also directs the agent to goldin-categories for enum values and requires matching auction_type, and it warns that the Auction and Fixed Price pools are disjoint. However, it does not state when to prefer a sibling such as goldin_listing for a specific lot, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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