auction_case_search

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

Discloses no date filter behavior and the comprehensive return data (basic info, property list, parties, location). Also mentions returning None if not found. Being a read-only lookup, no further behavioral details are critically missing, though authentication needs are not mentioned.

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?

Description is well-structured with separate sections for purpose, behavioral traits, args, and returns. Every sentence adds information without redundancy, and it is concise for the amount of detail.

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 simple lookup tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, return behavior, and when it cannot find results. It is sufficiently complete given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains both parameters: 'case_no' with a format example, 'court' with naming conventions for branch vs main court. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: query court auction cases by case number. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'auction_search_by_case' by explicitly recommending this tool for specific case number lookups.

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?

Explicitly states preference over 'auction_search_by_case' and notes the absence of date filtering, implying it returns all statuses. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative usage scenarios beyond the single sibling.

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