listAuctions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation and the API-reference link adds some external context, but the description does not mention pagination, default sorting, response shape, or any side effects. This is minimal 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 one short sentence with the action front-loaded and an API-reference link included, so there is no wasted text. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse for a tool with 12 optional 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?

With 12 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a dense cluster of sibling auction-related tools, this one-line description is not enough for an agent to confidently call the tool or interpret its results. It does not state return values, defaults, or how it differs from viewAuctions, and the external link only partially compensates.

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%, and each of the 12 parameters has a schema-level description, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter defaults, combinations, or which filters are most useful, keeping this at the baseline of 3.

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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('NameSilo expired-domain auctions'), so an agent can tell this tool deals with searching/filtering auction listings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like viewAuctions or viewAuction, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use listAuctions versus sibling auction tools such as viewAuctions, viewAuction, viewAuctionHistory, bidAuction, or buyNowAuction. The description only identifies the object being searched and gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-routing hints.

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