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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says the tool lists terms and allows category filtering; it does not disclose read-only nature, return format, pagination, or what the 'comparison' and 'tutorial' outputs entail.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main list action, though folding in comparisons and tutorials reduces immediate clarity.

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 list tool with several overlapping siblings, the description should clarify what is returned and how it differs from compare_concepts, get_howto, and search_glossary. It leaves that gap unfilled and does not mention return values or usage boundaries.

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 0%, but the description notes that results are filterable by category, and the schema supplies the enum values. This adds some meaning beyond the raw property, though it does not explain the category meanings or default behavior.

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 verb (列出) and resource (所有名詞), but then adds '概念比較與實作教學', which muddles the scope and overlaps with siblings like compare_concepts and get_howto. It does not distinguish itself from 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?

The only guidance is that results can be filtered by category. There is no indication of when to use this tool instead of search_glossary, compare_concepts, explain_term, or get_howto.

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