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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default filtering behavior (open-only) and the D-n deadline indicator in results, but largely restates the open_only default already present in the schema and says nothing about rate limits, auth, or result size.

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 that front-load the primary action and default scope, with a bilingual restatement that costs little. No padding or filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's mention of the D-n display is helpful, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. Still missing an explanation of the kind enum and any differentiation from the overlapping search_procurement sibling.

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 67%: query and open_only are documented in the schema, and the description only echoes the open_only default. The kind parameter with its enum (물품/용역/공사) is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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 (찾는다/search) and resource (나라장터 입찰공고), plus the query mechanism (공고명으로) and default scope (마감 전 공고만). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_procurement, which an agent would reasonably consider for the same task.

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 implies usage by declaring the default is closed-before-only notices, which hints at when the tool is appropriate. But it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to search_procurement or any alternative for broader procurement searches.

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