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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses returns raw original items, auto-injects serviceKey/type, and is intended for debugging. This provides good transparency about behavior, though could mention error handling or rate limits.

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 a single concise sentence and a fragment, with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 of 33 operations and no output schema, the description provides an example and explains the return format. However, it does not specify per-operation parameter requirements, leaving a gap for users unfamiliar with the underlying API.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that serviceKey/type are auto-injected and provides an example for params. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a raw call to 33 specific operations of the National Market bid/award services, for verification/extension/debugging. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that provide refined or specific query results.

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 indicates usage for verification/extension/debugging, implying it is for low-level direct access. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tools serve as higher-level alternatives, providing clear context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates a structured 9-section memo from overview to CEO decision in Korean. However, it does not describe the output format, any side effects, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single concise sentence with an additional required parameter note, containing no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and key requirement, though structure could be improved with separation of sections.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and required parameter. However, it lacks details on return value, prerequisites, or error handling, making it minimally adequate for a memo generation tool.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter insights beyond reiterating that bidNo is required, achieving the baseline expectation.

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 creates a 9-section bid review memo in Korean for a specific announcement, enabling CEO decision-making. It uses a specific verb '작성' and resource '입찰 검토 메모', distinguishing it from sibling tools which are about retrieving or searching bid data.

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 indicates the tool is used to write a memo for a specific announcement and notes that bidNo is required. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses sorting behavior and inclusion of urgent conditions, but does not specify read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. Acceptable but incomplete.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the category '[마감임박]'. Every word serves a purpose without waste.

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?

The description lacks information on output format and the effect of the 'openInBrowser' parameter. With no output schema, it should at least indicate default result presentation. This gap reduces completeness for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 specifies the tool finds IT notices with deadlines within N hours (default 72h) and sorts them by remaining time. The term '마감임박' and '급히 확인할 조건 포함' clearly distinguish it from siblings like search_it_bids and recommend_bids_for_small_it_company.

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 for urgent bids by stating '마감임박' and sorting by time proximity. It provides context but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool. Clear context but no exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the types of information retrieved but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and what information is included, but it does not mention return format, error conditions, or other context. Adequate but incomplete given no output schema or annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves integrated detailed information for a specific announcement number and summarizes from an IT small business perspective. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_bid_opening_result (specific result) and search_it_bids (search) by focusing on detailed inquiry.

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 for getting detailed info on a specific bid, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks guidance on when to prefer get_bid_detail over sibling tools.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves a specific set of data (ranking, business number, etc.) and that on failure it automatically falls back to the official OpenAPI, which is a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not cover other aspects like rate limits, authentication, 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the main purpose and key constraints. It is concise but packs significant information. However, it could be broken into clearer segments for readability.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (list of companies with specified fields) and includes fallback behavior. It mentions parameter constraints. It is fairly complete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, though it could elaborate on error conditions or fallback triggers.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating that bidNo is required and bidOrd defaults to 000, and it clarifies the purpose of the business parameter (only used for OpenAPI fallback). This enhances the meaning for an AI agent.

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 it retrieves bid opening results for a specific announcement, including detailed company information. It specifies the scope (closed/completed openings) and the source (나라장터). While it distinguishes from siblings implicitly by its specific function, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like get_bid_detail.

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 gives usage context: it is for announcements that have closed and opened, and mentions that bidNo is required and bidOrd defaults to 000. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_bid_detail), nor does it mention conditions where it should not be used.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that recommendations are personalized via companyProfile and includes a scoring/classification system, but does not detail side effects, data sources, or whether it's read-only. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Description is extremely concise with one sentence and a parenthetical. No redundant information; every word adds value. Front-loaded with key functionality.

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, nested object, no output schema), the description explains the core output (score and classification) but lacks full detail on output format, pagination, or error handling. It is somewhat complete for a recommendation tool but could be more explicit.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, merely reiterating that companyProfile personalizes recommendations. No parameter-specific details are added beyond what's in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool recommends bids for small IT companies with a suitability score and classification. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_it_bids by focusing on personalized recommendation based on company profile.

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?

Implies usage for personalized bid recommendation but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like search_it_bids or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditions provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions two-stage filtering (server then client) and default behavior, but omits key traits: return format, pagination behavior, whether results are read-only, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with a clear title prefix, an explanation of the filtering approach, and an actionable example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level filtering logic but lacks detail on return values, error handling, or pagination behavior. It is adequate but could be more informative for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the dual-filter strategy (server filter for period/region/budget, client filter for keywords), but does not add new meaning beyond the schema for most parameters.

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 searches IT-related bidding notices (IT 관련 입찰공고를 검색한다), provides a usage example ('오늘 IT 용역 공고 찾아줘'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that have more specific purposes like urgent deadlines or recommendations.

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 for IT bid search via example but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_deadline_urgent_bids or recommend_bids_for_small_it_company. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions searching and displaying new/duplicate results, but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, whether it triggers alerts, how duplicate detection works, or any authentication requirements. Behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first delivers the core purpose (keyword monitoring, search, new/duplicate display), and the second emphasizes multi-keyword support. No superfluous content.

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?

The description covers the main function and parameter semantics are fully handled by the schema. However, since there is no output schema, the description should specify the return format (e.g., whether it returns a list with status flags). The mention of 'new/duplicate display' gives a hint but is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the output.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their meaning. The tool description adds overall context but does not provide additional parameter-level insights beyond what is in the schema. 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 it searches recent N-day announcements for specified keywords and marks new/duplicate, with multi-keyword monitoring. This is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_it_bids', leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_it_bids' or other siblings. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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