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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the return contents (amount, application method, official links) and the verb 查詢 implies a read-only lookup, but it never explicitly states read-only safety, data freshness, or whether any authentication is needed.

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 states the resource, the category scope, and the returned information with no filler. Every clause 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what is searched and what is returned. The only notable gap is how keyword and category interact when both are supplied, which an agent might need to know.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema, including the keyword example and the category enumeration. The description's parenthetical category list mirrors the category parameter without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb (查詢) and resource (台灣中央政府民眾補助津貼), then enumerates the covered subsidy categories, making the scope unmistakable. No sibling tool overlaps with this domain, so the agent can route to it directly without opening the schema.

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?

The purpose itself implies usage (look up government subsidies), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use keyword versus category, whether the two can be combined, or when to prefer this over any alternative. The usage is inferable rather than stated.

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