get_bid_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that the tool is a query interface to an external API, automatically handles common parameters (numOfRows, pageNo, type, serviceKey), and notes date range restrictions. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the query nature is evident. A more explicit statement about side effects would raise the score.

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 appropriately sized for a complex tool with 25 operations. It is well-structured: purpose overview, operation list, common parameters, and a warning. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the most critical guidance (how to use operations and params) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (25 operations, no output schema), the description provides a good starting point. It explains how to set up queries and points to another tool for detailed parameter/response info. It lacks explicit error handling or rate limit information, but the core usage is well-covered.

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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds significant value by listing all 25 possible 'operation' values, giving common query condition keys (inqryDiv, inqryBgnDt, etc.), and providing a crucial warning about 1-month date range limits. It also directs users to another tool for exact parameter/response details, compensating for the lack of param enums.

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's a tool for querying the Korea Public Procurement Service (나라장터) OpenAPI for bid announcements. It lists all 25 specific operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other data types (contracts, industry, etc.). The verb 'get' and resource 'bid_data' are well-defined.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on how to use the tool: specify an operation in the 'operation' parameter and pass query conditions in 'params'. It warns about date range limitations (1 month per call) and recommends using 'get_g2b_operation_info' for exact parameter details. Alternatives among siblings are implied by context (other get_*_data tools).

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