기관별 사전규격 조회

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the parallel search across all classifications when kind is omitted, and data recency (post-January 2025). This goes beyond the annotated metadata without contradicting it.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, sibling differentiation, special behavior, and data scope.

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?

For a 7-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, special behavior, and data recency. Missing explicit clarification on whether orderInstitution and demandInstitution combine as AND or OR, but overall adequate.

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 repeats the kind behavior already in the schema and contextualizes the institution parameters, but adds minimal new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema descriptions provide.

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 by ordering institution or demand institution, and identifies specific use case (viewing expected order quantities). It also differentiates from sibling tools by naming search_prespecs_by_product and search_prespecs_advanced.

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 advises using alternative tools for product-based or multi-condition searches, and notes the behavior when business classification is unspecified. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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