get_procurement_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only describes input mapping and does not mention idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The phrase 'detailed information retrieval' implies read-only but is not explicit.

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 concise with a clear front-loaded purpose and a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the Korean/English bilingual presentation is efficient for the target audience.

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 output schema exists (no need to describe return values), the description covers parameter domain mapping and usage. It lacks explanation of error handling or edge cases, but for a detailed retrieval tool with moderate complexity, it is largely 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 0%, so the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter's meaning (domain enumeration with Korean labels, notice_no mapping across domains, business_type context, notice_ord default). However, business_type possible values are not fully enumerated, and notice_ord format is vague.

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 detailed information for various procurement domains (bid, award, contract, request, shopping). It distinguishes from siblings like search_procurement and trace_procurement_lifecycle by focusing on single item details.

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 explains parameter usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied from context (e.g., search vs detail retrieval), but no when-not or alternative references provided.

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