낙찰 결과 검색

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that only the winning bidder is returned (not failed bids), and parallel search across categories when bidKind unspecified. This adds value beyond 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidelines and sibling differentiation. Efficient use of sentences; no wasted words. Slightly long but well-organized.

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 16 parameters and no output schema, description covers retrieval criteria and what is returned (winning bidder only). However, it lacks details about return format, pagination, and field contents (e.g., award amount). Could be more complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions parameters in list but adds minimal extra meaning beyond what schema already provides. Some context (e.g., bizno for competitor history) but not substantial.

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?

Clearly states it searches award results with multiple criteria, and distinguishes from siblings (get_bid_result, search_openings) by naming them and specifying their 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 states when to use (award search, competitor history, longitudinal research) and when not (for bid details use get_bid_result, for opening progress use search_openings), providing clear alternatives.

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