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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose provenance (每筆附資料來源) and an accuracy caveat (以官方公告為準), which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about freshness, coverage breadth, result volume, or read-only nature.

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 efficient sentence with the scope front-loaded and the caveat trailing. The bracketed tag is arguably noise, but the content is tight and every clause earns its place.

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 simple, read-only listing tool with a 100%-covered single param and no output schema, this is adequate but thin. It omits update cadence and result scope, which an agent would want to know before relying on the data.

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 the single optional 'chain' filter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'empty returns all' behavior. The description adds no syntax or filtering nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource (list public promotional campaigns at major Taiwanese chain retailers) and enumerates example chains. It is distinguishable from shop__compare_chain_prices, though the bracketed tag ［熱門連鎖比價］ (price comparison) slightly blurs the line with that sibling.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. It says each record carries a data source and that official announcements take precedence, but that is a data caveat, not usage direction, and it never explains when to reach for this tool over shop__compare_chain_prices.

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