search_gov_support_bizinfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need for an API key (authentication requirement) and implies search functionality, but it doesn't describe key behaviors such as rate limits, pagination details (beyond what's in the schema), error handling, or the format of returned data. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently state the purpose, search capability, and authentication requirement. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes) to reach the highest score.

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 moderate complexity (search with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and authentication but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits), output format, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool without structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful to an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all parameters (field, pageIndex, pageUnit) including enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying field-based search without specifying syntax or additional constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance 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's purpose: '기업마당(bizinfo.go.kr) 지원사업 공고를 단독 조회합니다' (retrieves government support announcements from bizinfo.go.kr). It specifies the resource (support announcements) and action (retrieve/search). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'searchGovernmentSupport' or 'search_gov_support_kstartup', which appear to serve similar purposes, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 some usage context: '분야별 검색이 가능합니다' (field-based search is possible) and mentions the required BIZINFO_API_KEY environment variable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'searchGovernmentSupport' or 'search_gov_support_smes24', nor does it provide exclusions or detailed prerequisites beyond the API key. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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