dynadot_get_closed_auctions

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

With no annotations, the description adds the behavioral requirement of special API access, which is useful. However, it provides no information about pagination, rate limits, or return format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 very short with no wasted words: one sentence plus a note. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more detail on parameters.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key requirement. However, the lack of parameter explanation and response details means it is only minimally complete for effective invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (pageIndex, countPerPage), and the description provides no information about their meaning or usage. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'completed auctions', and the name 'get_closed_auctions' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_open_auctions' and 'get_auction_details'.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'requires auction-API access', but does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., open auctions, details). Usage context is implied rather than directed.

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