search_gov_support_kstartup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authentication requirement (PUBLIC_DATA_SERVICE_KEY), which is valuable context. However, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by pageNo/numOfRows but not explained), error handling, or what the output format looks like. The description is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no output 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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and resource, and another noting the authentication requirement. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from prerequisites).

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers authentication and high-level purpose but misses behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, pagination), output details, and guidance on parameter use. For a search tool with multiple filters and pagination, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 description coverage is 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions: supt_biz_clsfc, supt_regin, rcrt_prgs_yn), while pageNo and numOfRows lack descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values beyond rcrt_prgs_yn's 'Y', or usage examples. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't compensate for the gaps.

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 action ('단독 조회합니다' - retrieves/single query) and resource ('K-Startup(k-startup.go.kr) 창업지원사업 공고' - K-Startup startup support project announcements). It distinguishes from siblings like 'searchGovernmentSupport' by specifying the specific K-Startup platform, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_gov_support_bizinfo' or 'search_gov_support_smes24' which likely target different data sources.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the required environment variable (PUBLIC_DATA_SERVICE_KEY) for authentication, which suggests when this tool is applicable (when that key is available). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'searchGovernmentSupport', 'search_gov_support_bizinfo', or 'search_gov_support_smes24', leaving the agent to infer based on platform names.

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