my_list

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and gives almost nothing beyond the resource name: no statement that it is read-only, no ordering, pagination, or scope limits, and no indication of what a record contains. Only the state-filter semantics are disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence followed by a compact Args block; every line earns its place and nothing is padded. The parenthetical category list and the default note are both load-bearing.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the filter dimension adequately but omits return shape, ordering, and volume. An agent can invoke it correctly but cannot predict what it gets back.

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?

This is the description's main contribution: the schema types state only as a free-form string with no enum, and the description supplies the three valid values (submitted | dropped | skip) and the omit-for-all default. That is real added meaning, but it leaves the mapping between "관심 없음" and "skip" implicit and does not say how invalid values are handled.

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-and-resource pairing ("내가 표시한 공고 목록" — the list of postings I marked) and enumerates the three marking categories, so the agent knows this retrieves user-marked items rather than searching all contests. It stops short of naming a sibling like search_contests, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Use is implied by the title of the resource — fetch my marked postings — and the description adds the useful default rule that omitting state returns everything. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_contests or mark, and no stated precondition that markings must already exist.

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