Auction schedule and deadlines

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

Despite having annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them: it details return contents (status with plain-language meaning, past/current/upcoming stages, next deadline, bidding block with closesAt/stillOpen/hoursRemaining) and notes cancellation reasons appear when appropriate. This fully informs the agent about what the tool does and returns.

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 well-organized with clear sections (initial description, WHEN TO USE, KEY PARAMETERS, EXAMPLES, RETURNS) and uses concise, high-signal language. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, and the examples are particularly efficient at conveying usage.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, but the description fully covers its input and output behavior, including edge cases like cancellation. The RETURNS section explains the response shape without an output schema, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 schema already has 100% parameter coverage, but the description adds significant value with a KEY PARAMETERS section explaining each parameter's meaning and when to use them (e.g., include_revisions 'when the user suspects the conditions changed'). Concrete JSON examples illustrate usage, going well beyond schema descriptions.

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 the tool's function as 'the stage clock for one auction' and specifies exactly what it provides: what has passed, what is running now, what comes next, and time left to bid. It also distinguishes it from get_auction by noting it is 'far smaller' for time-related queries, making it easy to select among siblings.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly lists example questions like 'how long do I have' and 'when is the auction', and directly compares with get_auction, stating it is 'far smaller for this'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative, exceeding the minimum.

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