면허제한·참가가능지역 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about the return focusing on license/region conditions per notice order but does not elaborate on specific output structure. With annotations covering safety, a moderate score is appropriate.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage context, third explains parameter importance. 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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, read-only, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter nuance. While it does not describe the return format, annotations (openWorldHint) imply variability. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that bidNtceOrd is critical because license restrictions vary by order, that it should be sourced from get_bid_notice, and defaults to 000 if omitted. This provides operational guidance not present in the schema.

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 verb '조회한다' (queries) and the resource '면허제한·참가가능지역' (license restrictions and participation areas), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming specific alternatives (get_bid_basis_amount, get_bid_change_history) for related but different purposes.

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: '투찰 가능 여부(면허·지역 조건)를 확인할 때 쓴다' (use when checking bid possibility for license/region conditions). Also provides explicit alternatives and explains the need for bidNtceOrd from get_bid_notice, including default behavior.

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