get_government_auction_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, pagination, or any potential system interactions. The only implied behavior is the 'get' action, but no details are given.

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, short sentence that is easy to scan and front-loaded with the primary data source. However, it is a sentence fragment lacking a verb, which slightly reduces structural quality. It remains concise and free of filler.

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?

Given the fully described schema and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately identifies the data source and categories. It does not mention the date-range filtering or language options, but these are covered in the schema. Overall, it is functional but not particularly rich in context.

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 provides full descriptions for all five parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on them. The description adds no extra semantic context beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 specifies the exact data source (Government Logistics Department Hong Kong) and types (confiscated, used/surplus, unclaimed stores), making the tool's focus clear. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, so it relies on the tool name to convey the action of 'get'. It does not explicitly state 'retrieves' or 'lists'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or scheduling. The description only states what data is included, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and schema.

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