get_contract_process_data

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool queries an external API, auto-handles some parameters, and imposes a date range limitation. Does not explicitly state read-only or authentication, but it is a query tool. The information is sufficient for safe usage.

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 well-organized: starts with purpose, then step-by-step instructions, list of operations, common parameters, and a warning. Every sentence adds value, and it is not excessively long.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by directing users to get_g2b_operation_info for response fields. It covers pagination (fetch_all, num_of_rows, page_no), date range limitation, and operation-specific guidance. The tool is complex, but the description provides enough context for effective use.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical operational context: explains auto-handling of numOfRows/pageNo/type/serviceKey, lists common query conditions, warns about date range limits, and directs user to another tool for exact parameter details. This greatly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool queries the Korean procurement system's contract process integrated disclosure service. It lists four specific operations (foreign goods, goods, services, construction) and includes the Korean name. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools (e.g., get_bid_data, get_contract_data).

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 explicit instructions: set 'operation', pass 'params' dict, notes auto-handled parameters, advises checking exact fields via get_g2b_operation_info, lists common query conditions, warns about 1-month date range limit and suggests splitting, mentions PPSSrch for detailed search.

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