viewAuctionHistory

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. 'Get' transparently signals a read-only retrieval, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination, or authentication requirements. It is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks the richer context an annotation set would normally provide.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The API reference link is supplementary and does not detract from the clarity.

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 tool with one required, well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is retrieved and for which resource. It would be more complete if it described the shape of the bid history response, but an agent can select and invoke the tool with the provided information.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, defining auctionId as 'Auction ID'. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 operation ('Get bid history') on a specific resource ('an auction'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like viewAuction, bidAuction, and buyNowAuction. The verb+resource construction leaves no doubt about what the 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 implies the tool should be called when the agent needs bid history for an auction, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over viewAuction/viewAuctions or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not directly guided.

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