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

Goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it warns that photos exist only as collection-time preserved copies because court originals are destroyed after the hearing date, that null result rows are future hearings or undecoded court codes, that kind_note marks non-bid rows, that fail_count_note explains count mismatches, and that min_bid_source=item_list may be stale. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the dense remainder is operational caveats rather than filler. It is long and crowded with bolded warnings, which makes it harder to scan, but almost every clause carries actionable meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of return-value semantics — and it does, defining what fail_count, min_bid_10k, kind_note, fail_count_note, min_bid_source, and the tracking/price_events emptiness each mean and how they should be relayed. An agent would not misstate results after reading this.

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%, and the two parameters (case_no format rules, court_name uniqueness) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no independent parameter guidance, 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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource set — retrieves a single auction case's failed-bid history, price-change timeline, and property photo URLs. The question-type framing ("몇 번 유찰됐어? 얼마나 떨어진 거야? 사진 있어?") pins down the intent precisely. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling realty_get_auction_case, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Clearly states the situations this tool owns (failed-bid counts, price-drop history, photos) and explains what to do when sub-sources are empty (tracking/price_events may be blank; court_schedule is authoritative). It gives no explicit when-not or named alternative such as realty_get_auction_case or realty_search_auctions, so it is context-rich but not routing-complete.

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