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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: only in-progress bids are returned, qualification-failing announcements are excluded, and the score scale is explained (60 = unrestricted, 60–100 = more verified attributes). It still omits return-field/pagination behavior, but the added filtering and scoring semantics are substantial.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by score semantics and use-case examples. The scoring explanation is slightly long but each part conveys non-obvious information (exclusion rule, score band meaning).

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: what subset is returned (in-progress only, qualification-filtered), how results are ordered, and what the score means. Return field structure is not described, which is the only notable gap.

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 80%, so the schema already documents sort, limit, minScore and profileId; only 'page' is undocumented. The description's score explanation gives indirect meaning to minScore/sort=score, but adds no direct parameter syntax or defaults beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('나라장터 입찰공고 추천 목록을 조회합니다') and scopes it with '내 사업 프로필에 맞는', which separates it from the generic search_procurement_bids sibling. The differentiation is implied rather than named explicitly, so it falls 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?

Provides concrete example user questions ('우리 회사가 들어갈 수 있는 입찰 뭐 있어?', '나라장터 용역 공고 찾아줘') that give clear routing context. However, it never names the alternative tool (search_procurement_bids) or states when NOT to use this one, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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