Get one auction in detail

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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details beyond these: bid amounts only appear after the auction concludes, lease auctions carry propertyOwner/ownershipType/currentTenants, and redacted personal data appears as '[redacted]'. No contradiction exists.

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?

Though moderately long, the description is well-structured into WHEN TO USE, KEY PARAMETERS, EXAMPLES, and RETURNS. Each section earns its place: the examples show concrete usage, the RETURN section describes conditional fields, and the alternative guidance prevents misuse. No filler or repetition.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates. It explains return structure (summary, seller, per-section counts, requested sections), conditional data (bid amounts, lease fields), redaction behavior, and provides complete examples. Combined with sibling differentiation, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds extra value with examples, clarifies accepted id formats (public or internal), explains default include values, and provides a plain-language breakdown of each include option. While redundant in part, the examples and clarifications go beyond the schema.

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 'Everything about a single auction: the asset, the financial terms, the seller, and whichever sub-sections are asked for.' It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_auction_timeline and get_auction_results for narrower needs, and implies document-only access via get_auction_documents.

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?

An explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section states 'the user names an auction, or a search result needs expanding.' It also provides exclusions: 'For deadlines alone use get_auction_timeline; for the outcome alone use get_auction_results — both are much smaller responses.' This gives clear guidance on choosing alternatives.

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