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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: results are summaries with URLs and contain no computed values. It does not mention ordering, default result behavior when no filters are given, or what happens on an empty match set.

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 that front-loads the resource and ends with the output contract. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is near the point where it costs 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?

With six optional parameters and no output schema, the description's note on return content (summary + URL, no calculated values) fills the most important gap. It still leaves unstated what happens when all filters are omitted and whether results are ranked, which matters for a zero-required-parameter search.

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 83%, with each parameter (sido, sigungu, query, category, limit, max_min_bid_won) documented in-schema, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already there, which is the expected baseline for high coverage.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (캠코 온비드 공매 진행 물건 검색) and adds what the response contains (요약+URL, 계산값 없음). Siblings are in adjacent domains (search_court, search_bankruptcy) but the description does not explicitly separate this tool from them, so it falls just 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?

The phrase '계산값 없음' implies a boundary against calculation-type tools such as explain_metric, and the domain (public auction listings) implies when to pick this over court/bankruptcy search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement naming an alternative.

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