auction_search

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing about the remote court-data lookup, rate limiting, or the retry/connection budget governed by max_calls. Note the tension between the description's read-flavored '조회' and readOnlyHint=false; it is not an outright contradiction (the flag likely reflects network behavior), but the description gives no help in resolving it.

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 the essential scope front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate in style but is under-specification rather than economy given the tool's complexity.

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?

For a nested-object search with pagination, price/failure range filters, and a cumulative call budget, with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description leaves too much unaddressed. An agent cannot tell what a page contains, how results are ordered, or how paging terminates.

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% on a nested query object with roughly fourteen properties, so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. It mentions court/region and the sale-date range (start/end) but says nothing about page, page_size, usage/usage_mid/usage_small, or the appraisal/minimum/failures min-max range pairs.

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 gives a specific verb (조회) plus resource and scope: one page of auction listings filtered by court/region and sale-date range. The phrase '한 페이지 조회' implicitly separates it from siblings like auction_export and auction_collect (bulk operations) and auction_detail (single record), though it never names them explicitly.

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 use this versus auction_export, auction_collect, or auction_detail, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal, that it returns a single page, must be inferred from the word '한 페이지'.

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