search_g2b_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does a solid job: it reveals the data source is a local CSV (not a live API), the scale (13,400 records), the partial-match semantics, that results include item descriptions, and that active_only=True filters to active codes only. These are genuine behavioral traits, not schema restatements. The only gap is not describing the result return shape or pagination behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. Purpose and data scale are front-loaded in the first sentence, search behavior in the second, and the active_only filter in the third. Every sentence earns its place, and it avoids repeating parameter defaults already in the schema.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior (what's searched, matching type, active_only semantics) but omits the limit parameter and says nothing about the return format or result count. An agent could call it correctly for most cases, but the undocumented limit parameter and absence of any return-value hint leave meaningful gaps.

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 must document the parameters, and it covers two of three: query (accepts 8-digit classification code or Korean/English item name with partial match) and active_only (True returns only active codes). However, 'limit' is never mentioned, leaving one parameter completely undocumented. The description compensates for most but not all of the schema gap.

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 identifies the tool as a G2B (나라장터) classification code/item name search over a local CSV of 13,400 records. It names the specific fields searched (8-digit classification code, Korean/English item names), partial-match behavior, and inclusion of item descriptions. The G2B procurement domain clearly distinguishes it from the railway/urban transport sibling tools. It doesn't merely restate the name but adds search-field 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 what it searches and how (by code or name, partial match, keyword 'query'), and the active_only filter semantics, which implies the usage context. However, it never names alternatives or gives explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. Among the many search_* siblings, this is the only G2B-related one, so the domain boundary is clear, but the description doesn't state exclusions or edge cases (e.g., when query is empty).

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