get_order_plan_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-handling of certain parameters (numOfRows/pageNo/type/serviceKey), pagination behavior via fetch_all and page_no, max rows per page (999), and the 1-month date range constraint. It doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, but it's implied. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or rate limits, but overall sufficient.

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 with a clear opening statement, then usage pattern, operation list, common parameters, and warnings. It is front-loaded with the service name. However, listing all 8 operations verbatim is somewhat lengthy; could be shortened by referencing the sibling tool. Still, it remains organized and easy to follow.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many similar sibling tools, the description covers all essential aspects: how to use, what operations exist, common parameters, limitations, and how to get further details. It is self-contained and provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond schema: explains that 'operation' selects among 8 sub-functions, 'params' are operation-specific and can be verified via another tool, 'fetch_all' controls full data retrieval, and 'num_of_rows' has a max of 999. It also lists common query conditions and notes auto-handled parameters not in schema. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 '조달청 나라장터 OpenAPI' for order plan data (발주계획현황서비스), and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the data domain. It includes specific verbs like '조회' and lists 8 sub-operations, making purpose precise.

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' from the list, pass query conditions in 'params', and notes that some parameters are auto-handled. It advises using 'get_g2b_operation_info' for exact parameter details, warns about 1-month date range limits, and differentiates PPSSrch operations for detailed search. This is comprehensive guidance for proper usage.

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