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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine value: the data freshness (매일 자동 수집) and the conditional matchScore enrichment when a profile exists. However, it omits pagination behavior, result limits, and ordering, so it does not go much beyond basic context.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It could be marginally more efficient but earns its length by conveying the data source and matchScore behavior.

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 an 8-parameter, no-required-args search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, and the matchScore side effect. It leaves pagination/limit semantics and the empty-query default behavior unstated, which matters for an agent composing a call.

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 63%, with the enum and region/search descriptions doing most of the documentation work. The description maps its four filter keywords to search/category/region/tag and explains that profileId drives matchScore, but adds nothing about page, limit, or status. Baseline 3 is warranted given partial coverage.

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 (검색) and resource (나라장터 입찰공고) with the filter dimensions (키워드·업무구분·지역·태그), and notes the data provenance (조달청 오픈API 일일 수집 DB). This is clearly a search tool, distinguishable from get_procurement_bid, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling list_procurement_matches.

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, prerequisites, or named alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text when to prefer this over list_procurement_matches or get_procurement_bid. The only implicit cue is the verb 검색.

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