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 does disclose the data source (食藥署) and what the records represent (各國回收、下架), and 查詢 implies a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about result volume, pagination, freshness, or output shape.

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 compact sentence with no filler; the resource and its scope are front-loaded. It could have been slightly more informative without bloat, but nothing is wasted.

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 lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the source and content type but omits anything about result format or how the default 120-day window behaves. Adequate but leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 both 'days' (default 120) and 'keyword' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how those filters interact (e.g., whether keyword scopes across product/brand/country simultaneously).

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) plus resource (國際食品安全警訊) and clarifies the content as recalls/withdrawals from various countries. This is distinguishable from siblings like get_drug_recalls and get_food_ad_violations, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text when to prefer this over check_product_safety or get_drug_recalls; the only implicit cue is 'international' versus presumably domestic sources.

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