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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job by enumerating the six categories of returned data, implying a read-only lookup operation with no side effects. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only safety, error behavior, or auth/rate considerations — though the return-content enumeration substantially covers what an agent needs to know.

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 compact sentences with zero waste. The purpose ('상세 조회') is front-loaded, followed by a tight enumeration of return content, then a single usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place and the Korean text is economical while 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?

For a detail-lookup tool with only 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is quite complete. It lists the return categories, which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema, and explains how to obtain the input. Minor gaps include error handling and the exact response structure, but for this complexity level the coverage is strong.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by linking bid_no to search_bids output, which clarifies the provenance and format expectation of the primary parameter. It also reinforces the default nature of bid_seq via the usage instruction.

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 uses a specific verb '조회' (lookup) with a clear resource '입찰공고 상세' (bid announcement details), and enumerates the returned content: qualification requirements, schedule, base amount, contract method, attachment links, and change history. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_bids (search) and watch_bids (watching) — an agent can tell which tool to pick without inspecting schemas.

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 description provides a clear usage flow by stating 'search_bids 결과의 공고번호를 넣으면 된다' (input the announcement number from search_bids results), which establishes a sequential workflow: search first, then fetch details. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or when-not-to-use, but the linkage to search_bids gives adequate contextual guidance for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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