개찰결과 검색

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds significant behavioral context: status is a client-side filter on response data, response can be slow, truncated=true means incomplete scan, and clarifies re-bid vs re-announcement. No contradictions 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?

Description is a single concise paragraph that front-loads purpose and sibling alternatives. All information is relevant and efficiently presented. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve, but still very effective.

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 fields, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for usage, performance, sibling differentiation, and key behavioral nuances. It does not explain return value structure, but the schema and context imply the tool returns opening result lists.

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. Description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond schema (e.g., page size recommendation). The note about status being client-side filter is already in schema description.

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?

Description clearly states the verb '검색' (search) and resource '개찰결과' (opening results). It distinguishes from sibling tools search_awards (for final awardee) and get_bid_result (for single notice detail), and specifies the use case of finding failed/re-bid notices.

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?

Provides explicit when to use (for failed/re-bid notices) and when not to use (for final awardee use search_awards, for single notice use get_bid_result). Also gives performance guidance: filter by institution/industry/date range to avoid slowness due to client-side status filtering and truncated results.

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