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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, yet the description adds real substance: the anchor-bundle return shape, the allowed_citations vs unread_candidates distinction, and the 'arb:' prefix meaning administrative 裁決委員會 decisions rather than court holdings. It omits any note on result caps or latency, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent sentence carries citation-policy or reuse information. The labour/arbitration caveat is dense but earns its place; the whole thing is slightly crammed into one block.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, it explains the return shape (anchor bundle, citation ids, unread candidates) and citation constraints well. The missing piece is any description of max_results behavior or what happens beyond the default result count.

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% for two parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It implies query semantics loosely, but says nothing about max_results (default 5, max 10) or how query strings are interpreted, leaving half the schema undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Search Taiwan court judgments') and adds what comes back ('an anchor bundle with server-read reasoning excerpts'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling search_bundle, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

It gives a clear reuse rule ('if the same question was already searched earlier in this conversation, reuse those results') and a labour-query caveat, but never says when to prefer this tool over search_bundle or get_judgment_fulltext. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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