첨부파일 조회

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description confirms no file download ('파일 자체는 내려받지 않고 URL만 반환한다') and discloses API consumption details (up to 7 requests). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is concise yet comprehensive. Main action stated first, followed by alternative tools and constraints, all in a logical flow. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains return values (file names and URLs from multiple sources). Also covers API request limits and scope. Complete for a single-parameter retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the parameter's role and the return structure (results.notice·eorder·innovationRfp), going beyond schema to clarify output format.

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 states it retrieves file names and download URLs for bid announcement attachments, specifying sources ('공고문·규격서·제안요청서·과업지시서 등', 'e발주·혁신장터RFP'). Distinguishes from sibling tools by listing what it does not do (download, read text, other 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?

Explicitly says when to use: '첨부의 URL만 필요할 때 쓴다' (when only URLs are needed). Provides clear alternatives: download_attachments for downloading files, read_attachment for reading text, and get_bid_basis_amount/get_bid_eligibility for other details.

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