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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the authoritative source (TFDA) and that records are violations involving exaggerated claims, but says nothing about read-only nature, result limits, the 180-day default, or return format.

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 tight sentences with the resource definition front-loaded and the usage trigger second. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read query with a fully-covered schema and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, source, and a usage trigger. Only minor behavioral details (default window, limits) are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (days, keyword) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (查詢/query) and resource (違規食品廣告) with the data source (台灣食藥署) and a clarifying example (誇大療效). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_drug_recalls and get_international_food_alerts by scope, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Provides a concrete trigger condition – use it when the user asks whether a health-food ad is legal – which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it.

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