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 usefully discloses the government announcement source, implying authoritative and time-sensitive data, but says nothing about freshness/lag, whether it covers future days, or the response shape. Adequate for a low-risk read lookup but not rich.

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 sentences with zero waste: purpose plus data source first, usage triggers second. Nothing is padded and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. A brief note on what the result distinguishes (work vs. school closures, county coverage) would close the remaining gap.

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% and the county parameter's meaning (e.g. 高雄市; 不填為全台) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or scope detail beyond what the schema already states, 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 (查詢) and resource (台灣各縣市停班停課) with the authoritative data source (行政院人事行政總處公告) named. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_holidays or is_holiday without opening any 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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: use during typhoons/natural disasters and when the user asks questions like 「明天要上班嗎」 or 「高雄停班停課」. Clear context is provided, though no alternative tool or when-not condition is named.

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