Search Closeouts

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: asc sort on revenue/visitors/inboundLinks returns nulls first, price is the closeout price only and not the binding total, and pagination semantics (start/limit until start >= totalAvailable). This is exactly the kind of context structured fields can't carry.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the concept, then filters, then sort guidance, then the pricing caveat and pagination. Nearly every sentence carries actionable information, though the sort_direction/null discussion is verbose enough that some tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so for the key fields (age, registrationDate, price, totalAvailable for paging) plus null-value behavior. It stops short of a full return-shape picture, but is sufficient to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the sort_direction interaction with registrationDate and with the numeric sort fields, which the terse enum descriptions do not. It doesn't restate the filter or price_*_cents semantics, hence not a 5.

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 (search closeouts) and defines the domain concept precisely: expired names that failed at auction, now at a descending fixed price with no bidding. It distinguishes itself from the purchase sibling by pointing to get_closeout for the binding amount, so an agent can tell it apart from buy_closeout/get_closeout without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance — filter/sort fields, the registrationDate=asc trick for oldest-first, and when to hand off to get_closeout for a quotable total. It does not, however, differentiate from the closely related search_aftermarket and list_marketplace siblings, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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