mcp-narajangteo

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

Discloses specific file format support (HWP, HWPX, etc.) and ZIP extraction priority logic (제안요청서 > 과업지시서 > .hwp > .pdf) not inferable from schema; explains conditional analysis prompts triggered by department_profile.

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?

Well-structured with Args/Returns sections; front-loaded with core purpose; file priority logic and parameter mappings are high-value details that earn their place; could be slightly more compact but appropriately detailed.

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?

Sufficient for medium complexity: covers file handling behaviors, optional analysis triggers, and references output schema existence; minor gap regarding error handling for unsupported formats or large files.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage: maps file_url and filename to specific API response fields (ntceSpecDocUrl1, ntceSpecFileNm1) and clarifies department_profile's effect on output (generates analysis prompts).

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?

Clearly states the tool downloads/extracts text from bid attachments (RFPs) for strategic analysis, distinguishing it from sibling search/recommendation tools by focusing on document analysis rather than bid discovery.

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?

Implies workflow context by referencing 'ntceSpecDocUrl1 from search results' in parameter descriptions, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance contrasting it with get_bids_by_keyword or recommend_bids_for_dept.

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