gt_auction_format_recommendation

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as return type, side effects (likely none), or requirements. It only states the output format enumeration without further detail on behavior beyond the recommendation.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or 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 complexity (4 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain critical input parameters, the nature of the recommendation (single vs. ranked), or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 'weights' mentioned in the description, two other required parameters (bidder_value_prior, n_bidders, seller_valuation) are left entirely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what the input schema provides.

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 purpose: 'Recommend format from {first_price, vickrey, english} given weights.' It specifies the verb 'recommend', the resource 'format', and the allowed values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gt_auction_optimal_bid or gt_auction_simulate.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'given weights' hints at a condition but does not explain the role of weights or provide context for appropriate use, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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