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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations: it tells the agent that results contain a summary plus URL and no computed values, which sets expectations for the return content. Recency is stated but left undefined ('최근').

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource type front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too terse, but every clause (recency, summary+URL, no calculations) does carry information.

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?

There are 5 optional parameters and no output schema, and the description hints at the return shape (summary+URL, no calculated values). It omits ordering, the lack of pagination beyond the schema's limit cap, and when the tool should be preferred over search_onbid, leaving the agent with adequate but incomplete guidance.

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 80%, so the schema already explains sido, query, limit, category and max_min_bid_won (including the 10-item cap and the enum). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so 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 description names a specific verb (검색/search) and a specific resource (법원 파산공매 최근 공고, i.e. court bankruptcy trustee sale announcements), which distinguishes it from the general auction sibling search_onbid. It falls short of 5 only because it never explicitly names the sibling it is not, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

'최근 공고' implies that this tool covers recent listings only, and '계산값 없음' hints at the scope of the tool. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never routes the agent to search_onbid or search_court as an alternative.

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