get_auction_instruments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' correctly signals a read-only operation and the description clarifies the scope (auction session) and business purpose, but it says nothing about permissions, session prerequisites, or whether the result is empty when no auction is active. Reasonable but incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope, and the business purpose with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is close to sufficient: the agent knows what it retrieves and why. A brief note on what happens outside an auction session or what fields each instrument entry carries would close the remaining 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get instruments) scoped to an auction session, which is distinctive enough to separate it from search_instruments or get_quote. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast behavior, so it stops short of the top score.

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 parenthetical 'used to cover short-delivery obligations' implies the situation in which an agent should reach for this tool, which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for the broader instrument lookup case (e.g., search_instruments).

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