get_scsbid_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: pagination via 'fetch_all' and 'page_no' parameters, auto-handling of certain parameters, and the 1-month date range restriction. It implies read-only behavior (조회). While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only', the context is clear. The description adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 somewhat lengthy due to the 23-operation list, but it is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Each section earns its place: purpose, usage instruction, operation list, common params, and warnings. Minimal redundancy; could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient for the information density.

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 (5 parameters, 1 required, 23 operations with varying params), the description covers essentials: operation choices, parameter usage, pagination, and date limitations. It appropriately directs users to get_g2b_operation_info for detailed parameter/response info. No output schema, but that is compensated by the cross-reference. The description is complete enough 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial context: it lists all 23 operation values (schema only has a generic example), provides concrete example keys for 'params' (e.g., inqryDiv, inqryBgnDt), and explains differences for PPSSrch operations. This enriches understanding beyond the parameter descriptions 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 it is a tool for querying the Korean Public Procurement Service (나라장터) OpenAPI for successful bid (scsbid) data. It lists all 23 available operations with Korean descriptions, making the purpose explicit and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bid_data or get_contract_data, which target different data types.

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 in the 'operation' parameter, pass query conditions via 'params', and notes that numOfRows/pageNo/type/serviceKey are auto-handled. It advises using get_g2b_operation_info for exact parameters/response fields, lists commonly used query keys, and warns about the 1-month limit on date ranges. This comprehensive guidance clarifies when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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