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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 查詢 implies a read-only lookup and the parenthetical discloses that results cover overseas recalls/removals, but nothing is said about data freshness, result volume, pagination, or return shape.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the jurisdiction tag and the core action. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed tag consumes space that could have carried usage or scope detail.

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 small two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the source and content. It omits the default 120-day window, coverage scope, and result format, which an agent would otherwise need.

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 both parameters (days, keyword) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no extra syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics. Baseline 3 applies 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?

The description gives a specific verb (查詢) plus a precise resource (食藥署整理的國際食品安全警訊) and even names the content type (各國回收、下架). This clearly separates it from sibling health tools like get_drug_recalls or check_product_safety, though it stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives.

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 name and description — you call it to look up international food safety alerts — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion versus the adjacent drug-recall and product-safety tools. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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