Read public car auction status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context: anonymous observation only, possible errors from feature gating/rate limits/unknown events, and that reserves and bidder identities are withheld. It also warns that a saved event ID does not imply an open auction, which is a real behavioral trap.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by three dense bullets, each carrying distinct guidance (identifier selection, staleness/refresh, privacy and error behavior). Minor redundancy with the schema's auction_id text, but no filler sentences.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter read tool, the description covers identifier provenance, staleness handling, error expectations, and privacy boundaries — everything an agent needs to call it and interpret a failure.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what auction_id semantically identifies ('a sale event, not the vehicle advertisement') and by forbidding substitution of listing_id. Some of this duplicates the schema's own parameter description, which keeps it from 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 ('Observe one car auction's public bid state') and immediately positions it against two siblings: search_auctions for discovery and get_vehicle for the linked car's facts. An agent can place this tool in the workflow without opening any 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?

Explicit routing: use search_auctions to discover IDs, get_vehicle for vehicle facts, and this tool only for bid state. It also names the wrong-identifier failure mode (never substitute listing_id, never carry a bid across auction IDs) and states the out-of-scope action (bidding requires a verified dealer outside this tool).

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