auction_detail

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with openWorldHint=true, meaning this is not a pure local read and may reach external systems, yet the description says nothing about network calls, retries, rate limits, or whether a job/collection step is involved. The phrase about 'verifying' court/case identity hints at a lookup but does not disclose what happens when verification fails.

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, front-loaded and free of padding, so it is certainly concise. However, the brevity is achieved by omitting necessary detail rather than by efficient expression, so it is terse without being informative.

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, an openWorld non-read-only profile, and two undocumented required parameters, the description should carry much more weight than it does. It leaves the agent unable to predict return shape, failure behavior, or parameter formats.

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 only 33%: max_calls is documented, but court and case are bare strings with no format hints (court code? name? case number pattern?) and the description does not compensate at all despite those being the two required parameters. This is a critical gap because the tool's own stated purpose is verifying court/case identity.

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 identifies a 'detail' (상세) tool for auctions scoped to court/case, which gives some resource specificity. But '15A 상세' is unexplained internal shorthand and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like auction_search or auction_collect, so an agent cannot tell why to pick this one from the name text alone.

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 only usage-adjacent statement is a disclaimer that this is not rights analysis or investment advice, which is scope exclusion rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on preconditions (that court and case must already be identified) or when to prefer auction_search/auction_collect instead.

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