call_raw_operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses returns raw original items, auto-injects serviceKey/type, and is intended for debugging. This provides good transparency about behavior, though could mention error handling or rate limits.

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 a single concise sentence and a fragment, with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the complexity of 33 operations and no output schema, the description provides an example and explains the return format. However, it does not specify per-operation parameter requirements, leaving a gap for users unfamiliar with the underlying API.

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 that serviceKey/type are auto-injected and provides an example for params. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a raw call to 33 specific operations of the National Market bid/award services, for verification/extension/debugging. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that provide refined or specific query results.

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 indicates usage for verification/extension/debugging, implying it is for low-level direct access. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tools serve as higher-level alternatives, providing clear context.

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