get_user_info_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 common parameters, fetch_all behavior (collects all pages vs single page), and the 1-month date limitation. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but for a data retrieval tool, the disclosed behaviors are adequate.

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: purpose statement, instructions, operation list, common params, and caution. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds useful information. Front-loaded with key operation list and instructions.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally explain return values. It does not, but offsets by suggesting get_g2b_operation_info for response fields. Given the tool's dependency on another tool for details, this is moderate completeness. Sibling tools and complexity (5 params, 5 operations) are handled adequately.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value: it lists the exact operation names and their meanings, explains common param keys (inqryDiv, inqryBgnDt, etc.) with example values, notes the 1-month limit, and directs to another tool for full parameter details. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states it is a query tool for '나라장터 사용자정보서비스' (user info service) and lists 5 specific operations, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bid_data or get_contract_data which target different services.

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 clear instructions: specify operation in English, pass params as dict, auto-handles numOfRows/pageNo/type/serviceKey, references get_g2b_operation_info for exact parameters, and gives examples of commonly used parameters. It also warns about date range limits (1 month max). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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