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 valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the ~600K record scale, the fact that change orders are collapsed into a single contract, and the specific aggregate outputs (counts, amounts, sole-source ratio, rankings) it returns.

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 in Korean and English that front-load the scope and outputs efficiently. No wasted words, though the bilingual duplication is slightly redundant.

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 7-parameter analytics tool with no output schema, the description reasonably conveys the aggregate nature of the result. However, it doesn't describe pagination, result limits, or how to interpret rankings, and provides no usage differentiation from related siblings.

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 71% with 7 parameters, so the schema does substantial work. The description mentions filtering dimensions (품목·기관·업체) which loosely maps to the 'by' enum, but adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema already documents for key parameters.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: searching Korean public procurement contracts (~600K records, with change orders folded into one) and returning counts, amounts, sole-source ratios, top counterparties, and legal-basis rankings. It is specific and quantifies scale, though it doesn't differentiate from siblings like search_bids, which also appears procurement-related.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description vaguely implies aggregation/ranking functionality, but doesn't clarify the distinction from search_bids or when an agent should choose one over the other.

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