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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a cost model (1 point per returned record) and lists the fields returned, which partially covers the missing output schema. However, it omits pagination behavior, auth requirements, and result-set limits for a tool with 250-item paging.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the registry, the query keys and the priced per-record model, with no filler. It is tight, though the return-field list is somewhat dense/run-on within the same sentence.

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 paginated registry search with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the return shape (substituting for the missing output schema) and the cost. It still leaves pagination semantics and the relationship to run_tw_companies unstated, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 keyword, status enum, max_items and start_page are all documented in the schema. The description adds only the mapping of the keyword to 'company name or 統一編號', which is marginal value over the schema's own 'Company name' example. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Taiwan company registry / MOEA), and specifies the two query keys (company name or 統一編號). It also enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinct from non-Taiwan sibling tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling run_tw_companies (single-company lookup).

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?

Usage is implied by the search-by-name-or-ID framing and the cost note, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer run_tw_companies over this search tool, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the purpose but must guess the routing.

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