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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses the return fields (사전규격등록번호, 품명, 수요기관, 배정예산, 의견 마감일, 연결된 본공고 번호) and the access restriction 'Pro 전용'. Searching is non-destructive by implication, and the output/access details are meaningful, though pagination or result limits are not mentioned.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: action, use case, return fields, and access restriction. The description is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives enough orientation: what is searched, why it is useful, what fields are returned, and the access requirement. It does not explain parameter combinations or category semantics, but schema descriptions cover most parameter meaning, making the description reasonably complete.

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 input schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already defines agency, keyword, from_date, and to_date. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, and the category enum values (cnstwk, servc, thng, frgcpt) remain unexplained, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the precise action '사전규격(발주 전 규격 공개)을 검색한다', naming a specific resource and scope and noting it is the pre-main-announcement stage. This differentiates it from the sibling search_bids tool, though it does not explicitly name the alternative, so it stops 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?

The phrase '본공고 전 단계라 조기 발굴에 유용하다' gives a clear use context: choose this tool when the goal is early discovery before the main announcement. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention search_bids as the alternative, but the context is clear enough.

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