auction_search_by_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: only items with a sale date are returned, empty list means no ongoing items (not an error), and the return type is a list of item summaries. Though it does not mention authentication or read-only nature, those are implied and the description is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 very concise, consisting of a few lines that efficiently convey purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, and return value. Every sentence adds value with no 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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, simple list return) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, parameters with examples, and return format. It is fully complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing clear Korean descriptions for both parameters: case_no with example '2024타경12345' and court with example '서울중앙지방법원', along with optionality. This fully covers the meaning and format 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?

The description specifies the verb '검색한다' (search), the resource '법원경매 진행 중 매각물건' (court auction ongoing sale items), and the search key '사건번호' (case number). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool auction_case_search by stating the condition under which that tool should be used instead.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: to find ongoing items with a sale date set. It also explicitly states when not to use it (when there are no ongoing items, resulting in an empty list) and directs the agent to the alternative tool auction_case_search.

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