정부 창업지원 공고 검색

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it returns only actual collected announcements with source and collection time, and that it does not fabricate data. This adds significant transparency beyond the input schema, though it omits details like authorization needs 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 two sentences with no wasted text. The first sentence states the search capability and filter dimensions, the second clarifies data authenticity. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool (6 optional parameters, no output schema), the description mentions that results include source and collection time, giving some return format context. However, it does not specify default behavior when no parameters are provided or elaborate on result structure. Slightly incomplete but still informative.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The main description lists filter categories (keyword, region, stage, field, deadline) but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. No parameter-specific guidance is added.

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 uses a specific verb ('검색합니다' - searches) and explicitly states the resource ('정부 창업지원 공고' - government startup support announcements). It distinguishes itself by clarifying it only returns real collected announcements, preventing hallucination, which differentiates it from sibling tools like recommend_grants that might provide suggestions.

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 searching announcements but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommend_grants or check_eligibility. No when-not-to-use or context exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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