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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned content (counts, deaths, injuries) and the historical coverage starting at year 106, which implies a read-only query. It says nothing about behavior for unknown or stale locationKeyid values, empty results, or response shape, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated 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 dense sentence with the resource and time scope front-loaded and the parameter-provenance note after a semicolon; no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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, fully documented query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and parameter sourcing adequately. Only the result structure and edge-case behavior are left unspecified, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the critical note that the code is locationKeyid and not hotspotKeyid. The description only restates the provenance from get_cbi_hotspots, adding workflow context but no new per-parameter meaning, 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 states a specific verb (查詢) plus a specific resource: the historical trend of accident counts, deaths, and injuries for a single intersection or road segment, with an explicit time scope (since ROC year 106). It is clear about what is retrieved, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbors such as get_location_trend or get_location_overview.

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 concrete prerequisite workflow: locationKeyid and kind must come from a prior get_cbi_hotspots result, which prevents the agent from guessing IDs. It does not state when to prefer this over the other location_* siblings, so usage is clear but not fully exclusive.

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