get_data_standard_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool calls an external API, that certain parameters are auto-processed, and that date-based queries are limited to 1-month ranges. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe error handling, rate limits, or what happens if an invalid operation is provided.

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-structured: an introductory sentence, clear instructions, a bullet list of operations, common parameters, and a warning. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, with no redundant sentences. A slightly more concise presentation without the extraneous 'PPSSrch' mention could improve it.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does not explain the return format or structure. It redirects users to get_g2b_operation_info for response fields, which is a reasonable workaround but leaves the description incomplete. It does cover pagination behavior (fetch_all) and the date range constraint, which is helpful.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds value by giving common query conditions for the 'params' parameter (e.g., inqryDiv, inqryBgnDt) with Korean explanations, and by clarifying that numOfRows, pageNo, type, serviceKey are auto-processed. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 is for querying the '나라장터 공공데이터개방표준서비스' and lists three specific operations (getDataSetOpnStdBidPblancInfo, getDataSetOpnStdScsbidInfo, getDataSetOpnStdCntrctInfo) that correspond to distinct data categories (bids, successful bids, contracts). The verb '조회' (query) is specific, and the tool is differentiated from siblings by its focus on the 'data_standard' service.

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?

The description provides detailed usage instructions: specifying operation and params, noting that some parameters are auto-handled, and directing users to get_g2b_operation_info for precise parameter/response fields. It also warns about date range limits (1 month) and suggests monthly splitting. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_bid_data), nor does it list exclusion cases.

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