auction_codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no indication of what the returned code list looks like, whether it is static or per-account, or how the codes relate to the search/collect siblings. With no output schema, this gap matters.

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?

Two short fragments, no padding — but the second fragment is vague enough that its brevity comes at the cost of meaning. Short and front-loaded, yet under-specified rather than efficient.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place an agent can learn what this returns and how to use it. It says 'codes' exist for three dimensions but never explains the return shape, code granularity, or that the codes feed into auction_search filters — leaving a real gap for a discovery-style tool in a seven-tool family.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 names the resource (court / province / land-building major classification codes) but the action is muddled: '하위 코드 목록 지원 범위 확인' reads as 'check the supported range of sub-code lists', which is not a clear verb. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling auction_coverage, so an agent cannot confidently pick between them.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus auction_search, auction_coverage, or auction_detail. The closest thing to guidance is the mention of '하위 코드 목록 지원 범위', which is a hint at scope-checking but not an explicit usage condition or exclusion.

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