Find court, bank and government auctions, scored

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds what they cannot: it runs the Apify Actor tacps126/auctions-radar on the caller's own Apify account, costs about $0.015 per lot with a hard $0.5 per-call spend cap. That is exactly the auth and cost context an agent needs before calling a paid, open-world search.

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 scoring/cost sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the first sentence is a long enumeration of return fields (price, valuation, debts, area, price per m2, deposit, case number, photos) that duplicates an output schema the agent already has. Roughly half of that sentence is redundant payload.

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 15 optional parameters, an output schema and full annotations, the description supplies the missing operational layer (cost model, spend cap, actor dependency, scoring basis). Little is absent beyond an explicit statement of result limits or how the profile enum changes scoring.

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 coverage is 100% with enums and defaults documented, so the baseline applies. The description links scoring to the budget, place and date inputs and lists which currencies/regions are supported, but it adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond what the schema already spells out.

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 (finding foreclosure, court, tax and bank auctions) plus the four countries covered and the scored-lot output, which clearly separates it in kind from a plain listings search. It never names the adjacent sibling (search_german_property_listings), so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"Use for finding below-market property, screening distressed assets and auction alerts" gives concrete use cases that map well to an agent's intent. It stops short of exclusions or a named alternative for 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.