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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely non-structured context: the exact response sections (summary·distribution·deadlines·largest·insights), an explicit negative behavior (no raw notice list is returned), the implicit default filter, and a per-call cost of 50 points. That is substantive disclosure beyond the annotations, though permission/rate-limit or pagination interaction details are absent.

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 key scope statement and the exclusion of raw listing are front-loaded, and the cost note is a tidy trailing marker. The full English-to-Korean duplication of the opening sentences repeats information without adding any, which slightly inflates length.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return sections and the no-raw-list constraint, which is the most important thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is that it never says what date window applies when startDate/endDate are omitted.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the bizType default already documented in the schema and otherwise says nothing about how bidNtceNo, date ranges, or indstrytyCd interact with the aggregate analysis. It adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyze Korean public-sector bid notices') and enumerates the analytic dimensions: budget bands, agencies, industries, closing urgency, largest opportunities. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a listing tool by stating '공고 원문 목록은 제공하지 않습니다'. It does not name the sibling tool (e.g., bid_award), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Provides useful default-behavior guidance ('bizType 을 생략하면 용역 공고를 분석합니다'), which tells the agent what happens when a key filter is omitted. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or which situations it is unsuitable for; the agent must infer the boundary with bid_award and other bid-related tools.

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