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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what is retrieved (registration status, representative, capital, address), which is useful since no output schema exists. It omits error behavior for an invalid 統一編號 and any auth or rate-limit context.

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 colon-structured sentence with the toolbox label, the operation, and the retrieved fields all front-loaded. No filler or 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?

For a read-only lookup with no output schema, the description explains what comes back, so an agent knows the shape of the result. It falls short on the two undocumented parameters, especially the unmentioned name-based search, and on failure modes.

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 0% and neither 'ban' nor 'name' has a schema description. The description maps 統一編號 to the cryptic 'ban' parameter (check-digit verification), which is genuinely helpful, but the 'name' parameter is never addressed, leaving half the inputs undocumented.

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 and resource: look up a Taiwan company, verifying the 統一編號 check digit and pulling MOEA registration data. The named output fields (registration status, representative, capital, address) make the scope unambiguous and distinct from every creator__ sibling, none of which perform company registry lookups.

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 「網紅開團合規工具箱」 tag implies this is the compliance-track lookup, giving implicit usage context. However, it never states when to reach for this versus relatives like creator__check_tax_registration, nor when it should not be used (e.g., non-Taiwan entities).

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