viewAuctions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get details' and provides a link, but discloses no behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, return format, or side effects. The API reference link is a pointer, not embedded behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with a reference link. It contains no redundant words or fluff. While very minimal, it is appropriately concise for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema and one required parameter, so the description should explain what 'details' means or what a caller can expect back. It does not, and the external link, while useful, leaves the agent without direct context about return values or limitations. For a read-only product with a single param, this is a notable gap.

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 single parameter auctionIds is fully described in the schema with helpful format details ('array or comma-separated'). The description adds no further meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'Get details for multiple auctions'. It is clear that this tool retrieves auction details and the 'multiple' qualifier differentiates it from sibling viewAuction, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as viewAuction or listAuctions. There are no eligibility requirements, usage contexts, or exclusions. The 'multiple' keyword gives minimal implication but no explicit routing.

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