search_auctions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does mention 'Free' and lists return fields (case_id, court, address, etc.), adding some transparency. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe pagination behavior, or disclose any limitations like data freshness or rate limits.

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-organized block that front-loads the purpose, then lists filters and return fields. It contains no filler or repetition, and efficiently packs useful information into a compact structure.

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 is no output schema, so the description appropriately lists return fields. However, it fails to explain important aspects like default sorting, pagination, meaning of court_code, and how status affects results. With 11 parameters and no required fields, the description is adequate but not complete.

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?

The description adds meaning for several parameters: prefecture (with example 東京都), property_type (with enum values), price range, and bid_period_only. However, it omits other parameters like status, keyword, sort, limit, and offset. Since schema coverage is only 36% and the description does not fully compensate, the parameter semantics are partially helpful but incomplete.

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 tool searches Japanese court real-estate auctions using BIT data, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the subsidies module, but does not differentiate from sibling auction tools like get_auction_detail or list_upcoming_sales, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides one explicit exclusion ('Distinct from the subsidies module above'), but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus other auction-related siblings such as get_auction_detail or list_upcoming_sales. The usage context is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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