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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the required Bearer API key and cost per call ($0.04), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any rate limits, though the query name implies safety.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's domain and key details. The parenthetical cost/auth info is compact and doesn't distract.

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 simple query tool with no output schema, the description lists the returned fields and mentions auth/cost. It omits pagination details beyond the limit parameter, but the schema covers that. It is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only describing returned fields. 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 clearly states it queries high-value Korean public procurement bids from Korea PPS NaraJangteo, listing the normalized fields. It distinguishes from most siblings by domain, but doesn't explicitly contrast with query_kamco_public_auctions (auctions vs bids) or simulate_public_auction_margin.

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 when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. It doesn't indicate when to prefer this tool over query_kamco_public_auctions or others, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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