공고 변경이력 조회

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: change history exists only for three bid types, unspecified bidKind triggers 3 parallel API calls, and empty results indicate no changes. No contradictions.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, efficiently covering purpose, usage context, and behavioral details.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (corrected items, before/after values) and empty results. It covers the conditional behavior for bidKind specification and the API call implications. The description is complete given the tool's complexity and the rich annotations.

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. The description adds value by explaining the parallel call behavior for bidKind and reiterating that the three enum values are the only supported types. It also clarifies the relationship between parameters and alternatives, which goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves change history for a bid notice by number, including corrected items and before/after values. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bid_basis_amount and get_bid_eligibility, making its purpose specific and unique.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to check how bid content changed after posting) and when not (for basis amount or eligibility, naming alternatives). It also explains the behavior for specified vs unspecified bidKind, including the trade-off in API call count.

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