court_auction_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is included but does not mention behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by specific details, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope but lacks details on behavioral aspects and return values. It is complete enough for basic understanding but insufficient for full operational context, especially for a tool with potential complexities like data retrieval from court systems.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('case_number' and 'court_code') with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and the specific resource ('Korean court auction case'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'court_auction_search' by focusing on details for a specific case rather than searching for cases. It specifies the scope of information included: property details, appraisal, bid history, and case documents.

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 implies usage when detailed information for a specific case is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'court_auction_search'. It provides context (e.g., 'specific Korean court auction case') but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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