gt_auction_optimal_bid

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

The description discloses that Vickrey is truthful and that first-price uses BNE for symmetric IPV, but omits behavioral details for English ascending, assumptions (e.g., independent private values), computational complexity, or any limitations. With no annotations, the description should provide richer behavioral context.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, but it is too brief relative to tool complexity. Some important information is omitted, which reduces efficiency for the agent.

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 tool has 6 parameters (4 required), a nested object (competitor_value_prior), no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover return values, assumptions, edge cases, or how parameters interact. It is severely incomplete for a complex auction optimization tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It only mentions auction_format implicitly and does not clarify critical parameters like competitor_value_prior (how to structure), risk_aversion (role), or reserve_price. The word 'optimal bid' hints at valuation and competitors but is insufficient for correct use.

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 identifies the tool as computing optimal bids for three auction formats (first-price, second-price Vickrey, English ascending). It uses a specific verb ('optimal bid') and resource ('auction formats'), distinguishing it from siblings like format recommendation or reserve price optimization.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gt_auction_simulate, gt_mechanism_*). The description implies use when computing an optimal bid given valuations, but lacks context about prerequisites or situations where other tools are more appropriate.

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