pristine_auction_lot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the data is 'credential-free public data,' which covers authentication expectations, and it lists the returned fields. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, error behavior, or data freshness, which would make it more transparent.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then provides the return field list and the parameter source. The only minor inefficiency is the slight redundancy of saying 'full detail' twice, but overall it is compact and useful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields in detail. It also identifies the parameter source and clarifies that no credentials are needed. For a single-parameter read tool, this is a fairly complete picture, though it omits error cases and transport specifics (deferring to the endpoint markdown).

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% and the schema already documents lot_number as coming from pristine-auction-search's results. The description repeats this same relationship without adding new meaning, such as format constraints or examples. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get a Pristine Auction lot's full detail.' It enumerates the exact fields returned (title, description, image gallery, price, auction end time, category, auction type, no-reserve flag, counts), which distinguishes it from the related search tool. It also explicitly ties the input to the sibling search tool, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description clearly implies a prerequisite workflow: lot_number comes from pristine-auction-search's results, so an agent knows to call the search tool first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the dependency on the sibling search tool provides clear contextual guidance.

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