get_bid_opening_result

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves a specific set of data (ranking, business number, etc.) and that on failure it automatically falls back to the official OpenAPI, which is a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not cover other aspects like rate limits, authentication, or data freshness.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the main purpose and key constraints. It is concise but packs significant information. However, it could be broken into clearer segments for readability.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (list of companies with specified fields) and includes fallback behavior. It mentions parameter constraints. It is fairly complete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, though it could elaborate on error conditions or fallback triggers.

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 adds value beyond the schema by stating that bidNo is required and bidOrd defaults to 000, and it clarifies the purpose of the business parameter (only used for OpenAPI fallback). This enhances the meaning for an AI agent.

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 it retrieves bid opening results for a specific announcement, including detailed company information. It specifies the scope (closed/completed openings) and the source (나라장터). While it distinguishes from siblings implicitly by its specific function, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like get_bid_detail.

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 gives usage context: it is for announcements that have closed and opened, and mentions that bidNo is required and bidOrd defaults to 000. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_bid_detail), nor does it mention conditions where it should not be used.

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