낙찰가산식·평가주력분야 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: it performs a single query without work classification distinction and specifies the output structure (two keys: priceFormula, targetField), which goes beyond the 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?

The description is concise yet comprehensive: it front-loads the main action, provides usage context, lists alternatives, and explains the output structure in a single coherent paragraph without redundant information.

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 has only one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema but the description explains output keys, and provides sibling context, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described). The tool description reinforces the parameter's purpose and adds context about the return value and alternative tools, enriching understanding beyond 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 tool retrieves the bid evaluation formula (산식A) and evaluation main field (평가대상 주력분야) using the bid notice number. It distinguishes from siblings by listing alternative tools for related data.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('예정가격결정방법과 항목별 금액이 필요할 때') and provides named alternatives (get_bid_basis_amount, get_bid_eligibility, get_bid_change_history) for other needs.

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