auction_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important nuance that this reflects 'actual verification scope and limits' (i.e., measured rather than advertised coverage), but says nothing about how results are produced or refreshed. Some added value beyond annotations, but not rich context.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key idea (scope and limits) is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which does not hurt this dimension.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what an agent will receive, yet it gives no sense of the return content (list of capabilities? pass/fail per feature?). For a meta/coverage tool whose whole value is the shape of its report, this is a significant omission.

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 and the schema is an empty, closed object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 phrase '지원 기능과 실제 검증 범위·한계 확인' does name what the tool reports (supported features plus actual verification scope and limits), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never identifies the subject domain (the auction API/service) or the form of the output, so an agent cannot fully distinguish it from auction_detail or auction_job_status. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the five sibling tools (auction_search, auction_codes, auction_detail, etc.) are mentioned as alternatives. An agent must guess whether this is a pre-flight capability check or a post-run validation report.

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