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 return contents including 確認時間 (confirmation/verification time), implying price freshness, but says nothing about permissions, result limits, rate limits, or whether prices are cached vs live.

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 packs purpose, scope, currency, and return fields with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter search tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return fields, which is valuable. But it omits any treatment of the category parameter and provides no differentiation from sibling price tools, leaving meaningful gaps for a search tool in a crowded namespace.

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 50%: the query parameter is documented in the schema, but category is only an enum with no explanatory text. The description obliquely references category groupings (3C、美妝保養、家電) but does not explain how they map to the enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

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?

Names a specific verb (搜尋/search) and resource (台灣購物網站商品) with concrete scope: categories covered (3C、美妝保養、家電) and currency (新台幣). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_product_price, which also returns pricing, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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 states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as get_product_price or list_price_drops. The agent must infer that keyword search is appropriate.

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