gsa_auction_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output content but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or disclose any behavioral traits like network dependency or error handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists included content. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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 simple two-parameter input and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It lists the main categories of detail. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites or failure conditions, leaving minor gaps.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters (sale_number and lot_number) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get full details of a specific GSA surplus auction lot', specifying the resource (auction lot) and verb (get details). It lists content categories (description, bid info, location, inspection dates, sale terms), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_gsa_auctions and gsa_auction_stats.

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 description implies use when you have a specific sale and lot number. However, it does not explicitly guide when not to use or mention alternatives such as search_gsa_auctions for finding lots or gsa_auction_stats for aggregate data.

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