search_construction_work_by_district

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that when gu_name is provided, the API server filters by that district, lists the returned fields, and imposes a mandatory source-citation rule for answers. This goes beyond a bare search description, though it omits details like pagination, errors, or data freshness.

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 compact and front-loaded: it names the source and action first, then explains filtering behavior, return fields, and the citation requirement. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers invocation and answer-citation behavior reasonably well. However, it lacks guidance for choosing between this and search_construction_projects, and it leaves open whether at least one of gu_name or biz_name must be supplied, which matters for correct usage.

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 documents gu_name, biz_name, and limit. The description mostly restates the schema's server-side filtering behavior and keyword semantics rather than adding new meaning. It does not clarify whether the two search parameters are mutually exclusive or combinable.

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 (search), the resource (ListConstructionWorkService), the search keys (gu_name, biz_name), and the returned fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool search_construction_projects, and allowing project-name keyword search creates overlap risk.

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 the tool: when needing Seoul construction work information filtered by district or project keyword. It gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, whether to prefer search_construction_projects, or whether gu_name and biz_name can be combined.

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