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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (hit words, risk level, penalties, suggested wording), which tells the agent the tool is a read-only analysis rather than a mutation, but it says nothing about limits, permissions, or whether the submitted text is stored.

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 gives the action, the scope, and the return payload with no wasted clauses. Nothing is duplicated or padded.

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 and no annotations, the description does the important work of naming what comes back (命中詞、風險等級、罰則、可用說法), so an agent knows the shape of the result. It is only missing input-format expectations and edge conditions.

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% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by naming the subject matter (食品/化粧品廣告文案), which conceptually maps to the text and food/cosmetic enum parameters, but it never states that 'text' is the ad copy or that category must be one of two literal values.

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 specific verb (檢查) and resource (台灣食品或化粧品廣告文案) plus the exact violation domain (醫療效能、誇大不實的違規詞), which is easy to separate from tax, supplier, or fee siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling (e.g., endorsement_rules) as the alternative for endorsement-specific disputes.

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 scope sentence: you use it on food/cosmetic ad copy you want screened for regulatory risk. There is no explicit when-not-to-use case and no routing to endorsement_rules or listing_checklist for overlapping compliance questions.

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