search_construction_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by requiring mandatory source attribution when results are used, and it lists the key data fields returned. It does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or result pagination, but as a read/search tool this is a moderate rather than critical gap.

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 front-loaded with the main function, followed by the return-value summary and then the important attribution rule. It is three sentences with no filler; though the return-field list is somewhat long, every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers search criteria, returned fields, and a mandatory source-citation requirement. However, it leaves unclear how it differs from the sibling search_construction_work_by_district, and it does not describe result order, pagination, or edge cases, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the three parameters. The description repeats the gu_name/keyword search idea but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('검색한다') on a specific resource (서울시 건설알림이/One-PMIS 공사장 목록), with clear filter criteria and a detailed list of returned fields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool search_construction_work_by_district, which is similarly named, but its overall purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use it: when searching construction project lists by 자치구명 or keyword. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it, and it does not compare itself with the similarly named sibling search_construction_work_by_district, leaving a potential routing ambiguity.

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