search_procurement

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses parameter interactions (period overrides date_from/to, shopping ignores business_type) and return format (items, total_count, page_no). Minor omission: no mention of read-only vs destructive nature.

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?

Structured with sections and bullet-pointed parameters, making it scannable. However, the parameter explanations are somewhat verbose; some could be shortened without loss of 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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: domain behavior, parameter interactions, return values, and limits. Complete for a search 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It does so thoroughly, explaining each parameter, including enum values for domain, natural language processing for business_type, and default behavior for period. Adds significant meaning beyond 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?

The description explicitly states it's a unified search tool for 5 areas (bid, award, contract, request, shopping) of the Korean procurement system, with clear definitions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_procurement_detail or trace_procurement_lifecycle.

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 provides clear domain-specific usage notes (e.g., 'shopping' ignores business_type; 'request' is the earliest stage). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though sibling tool names give context.

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