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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (台灣食藥署公告) and the returned fields, which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, result limits/ordering, or how the days default interacts with level/keyword filtering.

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?

Two well-formed sentences with zero waste: purpose+returned fields first, trigger condition second. Everything is front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing what comes back (品名、批號、回收分級、原因), which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Remaining gaps (volume, ordering, permission model) are minor.

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 the schema already explains days, level and keyword. The parenthetical field list describes output fields rather than adding parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (查詢/query 藥品回收) and even enumerates the fields returned (品名、批號、回收分級、原因), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the partially overlapping sibling check_product_safety or the other lookup tools.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 使用者問「這個藥有沒有被回收」時使用. That is a clear usage context, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for adjacent cases (e.g. food/product safety vs drug recalls).

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