공고 개찰 상세

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses key behaviors: multi-category/round notices are split into arrays, the award method is estimated with different detail levels per contract type, and myBizno triggers an isOurs flag. 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?

The description is multiple sentences but each adds distinct information. It is slightly longer than necessary but still efficient, covering purpose, usage, alternatives, and behavioral nuances 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 7 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (winner, progress, price details, company-specific data) and key behavioral aspects. It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by explaining that the composite key includes bidNtceNo and that rbidNo, bidClsfcNo, bidNtceOrd narrow to specific execution. It also explains the effect of myBizno. The status and bidKind enums are not elaborated but are self-descriptive from 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('단건 조회' for single retrieval of bid result) and clearly indicates the output includes winner, progress, price details, and ranking/amount/score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools search_awards and search_openings by specifying that this tool is for single-record lookup.

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 the tool (post-analysis and bid price reference) and provides alternative tools (search_awards, search_openings) for conditional multi-notice searches. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the alternatives are clear.

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