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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: a missing case returns result 0·count 0 rather than an error, and the call is not billed in that case. It also discloses cost ([호출당 60포인트]). However, it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or response shape, so the addition is solid but partial.

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 English purpose sentence is front-loaded and the field list is compact. The Korean sentence largely re-states the English with the field enumeration, so there is some bilingual redundancy, but nothing is padded or wasted.

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?

For a 2-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned data fields, empty-result semantics, and per-call cost — enough to call it correctly. The main residual gap is not saying what the caller needs (auth/key) or how court names are matched.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (court as name-or-code, case_no with year/부호/number format). The description only restates '사건번호와 법원(이름·코드)' without adding syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema. 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 (look up a Korean court auction case) plus the identifying keys (case number, court) and enumerates the returned fields (기본정보·매각기일·감정평가액·최저매각가격·진행상태). It is clearly distinguishable from the bid_award/bid_notice siblings by domain, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has a 사건번호 and a 법원. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., which court codes are valid), and no routing away from related tools like bid_award or bid_notice.

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