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

With no annotations, the description does carry real behavioral context: it discloses the required Bearer sp_live_ API key and the $0.04/call cost, which an agent needs before invoking. It does not disclose whether results are paginated, how they are ordered, or what a returned notice looks like, so the read-only/return behavior is left to inference.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and source, followed by the auth/cost parenthetical. Efficient, though the triple-filter list and em-dash construction make it slightly packed rather than crisply structured.

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 three-optional-parameter read query with full schema coverage, the description covers source, authentication, and pricing. With no output schema, the shape of returned notices is undocumented, which leaves a meaningful gap for result handling.

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 limit, apiKey, and keyword are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or format detail about them. The mention of 'regional filters' and 'asset categories' loosely gestures at filtering but does not map to any concrete parameter. 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: official South Korean public asset sale notices aggregated from data.go.kr (KAMCO Onbid), with notice schedules, asset categories, and regional filters. An agent can distinguish it from query_public_procurement_bids by the 'asset sale notices' framing, though no sibling is named 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?

The description never says when to prefer this tool over query_public_procurement_bids or simulate_public_auction_margin, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key. Usage is only implied by the subject matter.

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