search_it_bids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions two-stage filtering (server then client) and default behavior, but omits key traits: return format, pagination behavior, whether results are read-only, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with a clear title prefix, an explanation of the filtering approach, and an actionable example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level filtering logic but lacks detail on return values, error handling, or pagination behavior. It is adequate but could be more informative for an agent to use correctly.

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 context by explaining the dual-filter strategy (server filter for period/region/budget, client filter for keywords), but does not add new meaning beyond the schema for most parameters.

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 IT-related bidding notices (IT 관련 입찰공고를 검색한다), provides a usage example ('오늘 IT 용역 공고 찾아줘'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that have more specific purposes like urgent deadlines or recommendations.

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 implies usage for IT bid search via example but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_deadline_urgent_bids or recommend_bids_for_small_it_company. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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