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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully tells the agent what information the guide covers, but it does not state that the tool is read-only, that it returns static guidance rather than live counseling, or what form the response takes.

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, well-structured sentence with the health-information context front-loaded and the covered topics listed efficiently. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what content the guide supplies.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the jurisdiction and the exact topics covered. It stops short of stating the return format or distinguishing the guide from nearby crisis-line and telehealth-eligibility tools, but the core content scope is clear.

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?

The tool has zero input parameters, and the schema is an empty object. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, there is nothing further the description needs to clarify about parameter meanings.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates its contents: Taiwan online counseling legal conditions, age limits, the 15–45 free three-session program, booking steps, and crisis hotlines. This makes the tool's purpose clear without opening a schema, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as wellness__crisis_lines or wellness__check_telehealth_eligibility.

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 lists topics covered but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when-not to use it or point to a related sibling for crisis lines or telehealth eligibility checks.

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