gt_auction_optimal_reserve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (computation without side effects), what assumptions are made (e.g., independent private values), or any limitations. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from the description alone.

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, unclear sentence. While brevity can be beneficial, here it sacrifices clarity entirely. It does not front-load key information (e.g., the tool's action) and reads more like a cryptic note than a helpful description.

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 three parameters (one complex), no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context. There is no mention of return value format, expected behavior, or how to interpret the result. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool reliably.

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 has zero documentation coverage, and the description adds no meaningful explanation for any of the three parameters. 'bidder_value_prior' is a nested object with additionalProperties true, but the description does not clarify its expected structure (e.g., distribution type, parameter format). 'seller_valuation' is hinted at by the description's phrasing, but not explicitly. This leaves the agent with no guidance on how to populate the parameters correctly.

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 'Myerson optimal reserve from virtual-value-equal-seller-valuation' implies the tool computes an optimal reserve price using Myerson's theory, but it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'computes' or 'calculates') and relies heavily on domain-specific terminology. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gt_auction_optimal_bid' or 'gt_auction_simulate' only by naming the specific concept, but a general-purpose agent may not grasp the purpose clearly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gt_mechanism_optimal_auction_design' or 'gt_auction_format_recommendation'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use, leaving the agent without decision criteria for selection.

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