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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that data comes from BIT (bit.courts.go.jp) but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or default sorting beyond what is in the schema.

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 description is a single sentence front-loaded with the main purpose and lists filters and return fields efficiently. However, the mix of Japanese and English and the comma-separated style could be clearer.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return fields (case_id, court, address, etc.) and mentions data source. It lacks guidance on pagination and sorting default, but overall is sufficient for a search tool with good annotations.

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 45%, and the description lists most filter categories (keyword, prefecture, court_code, property_type, price range, bid_period_only) but omits sort, limit, offset, and status. It adds context by grouping filters but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 description clearly states the tool searches Japanese real estate auction properties (競売物件検索) with specific filters and return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on details or directories.

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?

While the description lists filters and return fields, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_auction_detail for single auction details). The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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