search_procurements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool uses an external API and can filter, but does not disclose whether it's read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or result format. This is a significant transparency gap for a search tool.

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 states the core function and key filter capabilities without any redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is very brief. It does not mention the requirement that at least one of query, projectName, organizationName, or lgCode must be provided, nor does it explain how it relates to sibling tools. The rich schema descriptions compensate, but the description itself lacks contextual depth for such a complex tool.

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%, with each parameter already having a detailed description (including required alternations and date formats). The tool description only generically mentions filter types (date, keyword, category, prefecture), adding no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 for bid information using a specific API, with a clear verb '検索します' (search) and resource '入札情報' (bid information). It lists multiple filtering dimensions (date, keyword, category, prefecture), distinguishing it from the more narrow sibling tools get_procurements_by_date and search_by_keyword.

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 multifaceted searches by mentioning multiple filter criteria, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the siblings or provide exclusions. It lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, so usage context is only implied.

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