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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior beyond them by declaring the default sort (nearest sale date first) and enumerating what each result row carries (appraisal value, minimum bid, failed-bid count, sale date). It does not say what happens with zero filters or how results are truncated at the limit.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The English and Korean sentences are near-duplicates rather than complementary, which costs a bit of density, but total length stays well within bounds.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields, and all six parameters are covered by the schema at 100%, so an agent has enough to call it. The only real gap is default behavior when no filters are supplied and whether sd/sgg must be paired, which is only partially covered in the schema.

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 100%, so sd/sgg/court/category/item_type/limit are already fully documented, including the enum and the limit cap — the description only restates the filter axes in prose. It adds no syntax or interaction rules (e.g. whether category and item_type can be combined) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (search in-progress Korean court auction items) plus the exact filter dimensions and result ordering. The 'in-progress' scope and plural result set distinguish it cleanly from the singular get_auction sibling without needing the 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?

Usage is implied by listing the filter dimensions (province/district, court, use type), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer get_auction or get_auction_stats instead. An agent must infer the list-vs-detail split from the names alone.

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