get_nuri_scsbid_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. It discloses that the tool interfaces with an external OpenAPI, auto-fills certain parameters, supports pagination via fetch_all, and imposes a date range constraint. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no side effects) or describe error handling, but the behavior is largely transparent. The reference to get_g2b_operation_info for response fields is helpful.

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: opening sentence identifies the tool, followed by usage instructions, a bullet-like list of operations, common parameters, and a warning. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is relatively long (around 15 lines), each sentence adds useful information, so it is efficient rather than wasteful.

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 tool's complexity (7 operations, many parameters, external API), the description provides essential context: how to construct calls, where to find detailed schemas, common parameters, and limitations. It does not explain return values, but this is mitigated by referencing get_g2b_operation_info for response fields. The tool's place among siblings is partially clear, but more explicit differentiation would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already describes each parameter. However, the description adds substantial value: it explains the purpose of each operation (in Korean), lists commonly used query parameters (inqryDiv, inqryBgnDt, etc.) with examples, and provides critical constraints (date range limits, differences between normal and PPSSrch operations). This goes well 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 is for querying the 'Minm private subcontract award information service' via the Public Procurement Service's KONEPS OpenAPI. It lists 7 specific operations with Korean descriptions, making the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_bid_data or get_scsbid_data, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 explicit instructions: specify 'operation' and 'params', explains that numOfRows/pageNo/type/serviceKey are auto-handled, advises using get_g2b_operation_info for exact parameters, lists commonly used parameters, and warns about date range limits (1 month) with guidance to split calls. This covers when and how to use the tool effectively.

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