search_gov_support_smes24

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 authentication requirements (API key and IP allowance), which is useful. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, response format, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences that cover the core functionality and prerequisites without unnecessary elaboration. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from the core purpose for better clarity.

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 (a search tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, pagination behavior, and differentiation from sibling tools. While it covers authentication needs, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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 50% (two of four parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of 'pageNo' and 'numOfRows' for pagination or detailing date format constraints. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 reflects that the description doesn't compensate for the gaps but doesn't worsen them either.

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 individually') and the resource ('중소벤처24 공고 API(extPblancInfo)' - 'SME Venture 24 announcement API'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchGovernmentSupport' or 'search_gov_support_bizinfo', which likely serve similar purposes but target different resources or APIs.

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 mentions prerequisites ('SMES24_API_KEY 및 서버 IP 허용이 필요합니다' - 'requires SMES24_API_KEY and server IP allowance'), which provides some context for when to use it. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'searchGovernmentSupport' or 'search_gov_support_bizinfo', nor does it specify exclusions or ideal scenarios for its use.

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