search_contests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does contribute one genuinely useful trait: cross-source deduplication ('같은 공고는 여러 소스에 있어도 1건으로 묶인다'). However it says nothing about result ordering, pagination/truncation when limit is hit, or what fields each result carries — gaps that matter for a default-limited (20) search tool.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact per-argument list; every line carries information. Slightly terse on the return side, but no filler to cut.

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 six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers all inputs and the dedup behavior adequately. It stops short on output shape and ordering/limit interaction, which the agent would need to interpret results correctly.

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 Args block does all the work and does it well: it explains that query/field/region are partial-match (부분 일치), that dday_max is a days-remaining ceiling with a concrete worked example ('45면 6주 안에 마감하는 것만'), and supplies the enum meanings for status (open/upcoming/all) that the schema types only as a bare string. This is meaningfully more than the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('공모전을 검색한다') and adds a distinguishing behavioral note that duplicate postings across sources are merged into one result. It does not name or contrast with siblings such as get_contest or deadlines, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parameter docs reveal sensible scoping (status=open default excludes closed contests, dday_max=45 caps the horizon), which tells the agent how to narrow a search. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when...' guidance and no statement of prerequisites or when results would be misleading.

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