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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It is a zero-parameter static list, and the description effectively contains the exact output (the hotline numbers), making behavior fully transparent in content. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool returns these numbers, that it has no side effects, or that it requires no inputs.

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?

One short sentence front-loads the purpose and lists the hotlines efficiently. No wasted words.

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 static reference, the description provides the core content, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it omits important context such as when to invoke it, that it returns a fixed list, and any safety disclaimers. Adequate but incomplete for an agent in a mental health toolkit.

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 parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 clearly identifies a set of Taiwan psychological crisis hotlines, listing specific numbers. It is distinct from all sibling tools (which are exercises, assessments, or guides), but the phrasing is a noun list rather than an explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The crisis context is implied by the term '心理危機求助', but the description does not say to call this tool when a user expresses suicidal ideation or is in acute distress, nor does it reference alternatives.

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