出國與國旅實用查詢

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 signals this is a '試算' (estimation/simulation) rather than a real transaction and names the rate source, but it omits the return format, whether rounding or fees apply, and any rate-freshness caveats.

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 with the tool's core mapping (rate source, direction, cash/spot) packed in efficiently and no filler. Slightly dense for a 0%-coverage schema, but no wasted words.

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 4-parameter, 0%-coverage, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is only partially sufficient: it explains direction and type but says nothing about cur/amount handling or what the result contains. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for two enums, defining buy as TWD→foreign and sell as foreign→TWD, and cash vs. spot, but leaves 'cur' and 'amount' completely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (convert/currency) and sharpens it with the rate source (Bank of Taiwan posted rates) and the two directions of exchange. An agent knows exactly what it computes, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling exchange_rates tool.

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 description implies its purpose ('試算換匯' – simulate an exchange) and clarifies the buy/sell and cash/spot cases, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the sibling exchange_rates tool for raw rate lookup. 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists the informational topics but does not state that the tool is read-only, explain how the id parameter affects the response, describe authentication or rate limits, or clarify output behavior.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the scope and then enumerates the covered topics and destinations. It is appropriately sized and every element earns its place by defining the tool's supported content.

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 info tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives adequate scope by listing the covered topics and destinations. However, it omits usage guidance, sibling differentiation, and any explanation of the sole id parameter, leaving clear gaps for an agent to resolve.

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?

The input schema has one optional string parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description lists popular destination names that may correspond to id values, but it never explains what the id parameter does or how to use it, so compensation for the schema gap is minimal.

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 states a specific resource (destination info) and enumerates the covered fields (airports, voltage plugs, entry and pre-trip reminders) plus the supported destinations. It is clear what the tool provides, but it uses no direct verb like 'get' and does not differentiate itself from the sibling entry_requirements, which overlaps in scope.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives, and no mention of sibling tools such as entry_requirements or domestic_travel. Usage is only implied by the listed content areas.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what is returned (links, structured data, plain text), whether external calls or auth are involved, or how fresh the subsidy/event info is. The listed content areas give some sense of scope but no behavioral traits.

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, and the domain is front-loaded. Its density is a mild cost — it reads as a keyword dump rather than structured guidance — 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what a call yields, but the enumerated content areas plus the enum mapping give an agent enough to select a type and call it. Adequate but with a clear gap around return behavior.

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 0% and the single enum's values are opaque English tokens (parks, islands, regions, events, subsidy). The description maps these concretely to Chinese examples — 六福村/麗寶樂園 for parks, 小琉球/澎湖 for islands, 日月潭/臺中 for regions, 活動 for events, 國旅補助 for subsidy — which is genuine semantic value the schema does not provide.

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 enumerates the subject areas the tool covers (Leofoo Village/Lihpao Land transport, Xiao Liuqiu, Penghu, Sun Moon Lake, Taichung events, county tourism sites, 2026 subsidy), which tells the agent the domain. However, it names no verb or operation — it never says whether it returns links, descriptions, booking info, or schedules — so the purpose is only implied, not stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no differentiation from siblings such as destination_info or taiwan_holidays, which are plausible overlaps. The content listing implicitly scopes it to Taiwan domestic travel, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over those alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful scope information not present in the schema (the data is specific to Taiwan passport holders) but says nothing about data currency, whether results are static, or any access/authorization constraints.

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 that enumerates the covered topics compactly. Dense but no wasted clauses; the scope is stated first.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the information domain. It is missing any behavioral context (data freshness, applicability caveats), so it is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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% and the single country parameter is documented in the schema ('日本／韓國／越南'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond echoing the covered countries.

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 states a specific resource (entry requirements for a Taiwan passport holder) and enumerates the exact subtopics covered (visa-free days, Visit Japan Web, K-ETA, e-visa, Phu Quoc). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like destination_info or japan_taxfree_rules, though it never names those siblings 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions or exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as destination_info. Usage must be inferred from the topic list alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints that the tool both computes an estimate and returns setup instructions (iPhone compatibility, EID, SMS on a Taiwan number), which is some behavioral signal. But it says nothing about what the estimate is based on, what the response contains, or how the three inputs influence the result.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. No padding or repetition. It is short to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structural one.

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?

Three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description is the only source of guidance — and it omits all parameter meaning and return-value expectations. For a tool whose output an agent must present, this is insufficient.

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 0% and the description never mentions days, usage levels (light/normal/heavy), or hotspot_people. The parenthetical topics (EID, SMS) do not map to any input parameter, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented schema at all.

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 task (估算出國 eSIM 流量) plus a secondary function (設定說明), which is enough for an agent to know this tool produces an eSIM data estimate. The parenthetical lists the sub-topics covered (iPhone 支援機型、EID、臺灣門號收簡訊), clarifying scope. It is unique among siblings, so no differentiation is required.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus anything else, nor any prerequisite (e.g. trip duration known, destination country). The '出國' qualifier only weakly implies the travel context. Nothing tells the agent when this is the right call.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what data is returned (cash and spot buy/sell quotes sourced from Bank of Taiwan), which implies a read-only lookup, but it never states that this is read-only, rate-limited, or how fresh the rates are.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the data source and the covered currencies. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical enumeration is slightly long.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks the return shape (per-currency fields, cash vs spot structure) and the fallback behavior when cur is omitted. Adequate but with gaps.

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 there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already documents the comma-separated currency-code format. The description adds no syntax or default-behavior detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names the specific resource (Bank of Taiwan posted exchange rates) and enumerates the currencies covered, plus the quote types (cash and spot buy/sell). It is clearly distinguishable from a generic currency tool in substance, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling convert_currency.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus convert_currency or any other sibling. The listing-vs-conversion distinction is left entirely to inference from the description's noun phrase.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only information lookup, does not describe the return format, and says nothing about permissions, freshness, or side effects. It only lists topic coverage.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause names a distinct content area, and nothing is repeated or 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 parameterless informational lookup, listing the covered topics is largely sufficient for an agent to decide whether to call it. The main omission is stating that it returns descriptive text or data, but with no output schema and no parameters, the description is nearly complete for selection purposes.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per calibration the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist, and the empty schema correctly indicates no inputs.

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 resource (Ghibli Park tickets) and enumerates the informational scope (sale times, platforms, ticket types/prices, real-name rules), making it easy to distinguish from travel siblings like destination_info or entry_requirements. However, it lacks a verb phrase such as 'returns' or 'looks up', which would make the purpose even more explicit.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as destination_info or domestic_travel. The content list implies usage when those topics are needed, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether the content is static or time-sensitive, whether it reflects official sources, or what form the answer takes, leaving real behavioral gaps for a rules-lookup tool.

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 the effective date front-loaded alongside the subject. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness trades away detail that could have added value.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone. It identifies the topic and effective date but says nothing about scope, update cadence, or what the returned guidance includes, so it is only minimally sufficient for a zero-parameter info tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level. Baseline of 4 applies per the zero-parameter rule.

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 subject (Japan's tax-free new system taking effect 2026-11-01) and what it covers (refund procedure and points to note), which is enough to distinguish it from travel-logistics siblings like convert_currency or entry_requirements. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'retrieve'), but the informational intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as entry_requirements or destination_info, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the topic label.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication of whether the data is static or refreshed, how current it is, whether the coverage window is fixed, or what the caller receives. '2026 剩餘' implies a time-relative scope but gives no anchor or update semantics.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only carrier of information, and it supplies just a topic. An agent cannot tell what form the answer takes, whether the 2026/2027 windows are fixed or rolling, or what a caller should expect to do with the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 identifies the subject matter (Taiwan holidays: remaining 2026 long weekends plus 2027 calendar highlights) but uses a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states what the tool does with that data — return it, summarize it, or something else. It is distinguishable from siblings like convert_currency or entry_requirements, but only by topic, not by action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool, what questions it answers, or how it relates to the travel-oriented sibling tools. An agent has no signal about whether this is a lookup for planning, a general reference, or a date-scoped query.

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