입찰공고 검색

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true (read-only, no side effects). The description adds important behavioral context: when bidKind is unspecified, it performs parallel searches for 4 types (excluding etc) consuming 4 API requests. This is beyond annotations and helps the agent understand resource usage.

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 mostly concise and front-loads the purpose. However, the second sentence ('조건에 맞는 공고 목록을 찾을 때 쓴다') is somewhat redundant with the first sentence. Minor improvement possible.

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 12 parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the search criteria and distinguishes from siblings. It mentions the parallel search behavior but does not describe pagination or output format. Still fairly complete for its complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parallel search behavior for bidKind and traffic implications, which is not in the schema. This extra information merits a 4.

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 searches bid notices by various criteria (keyword, period, institution, region, industry, estimated price). It also distinguishes from sibling get_bid_notice by specifying that the sibling is for retrieving a single known bid notice.

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 states when to use this tool (when searching for bid notices by conditions) and when to use the alternative (get_bid_notice for known bid numbers). Also provides guidance on bidKind specification to save API traffic.

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