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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that identical coordinates are merged into coordinate+count, sorted by count descending, and explicitly warns that coordinates are heavily duplicated and must not be treated as per-case precise locations. It omits pagination/result-size limits and error 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?

A single dense sentence with front-loaded purpose, and each semicolon clause contributes (merge rule, precision caveat, keyid source). The keyid clause is partially redundant with the schema, which keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 usefully explains the return shape (coordinate plus count, sorted) and the precision caveat. For a moderately complex query tool the main gap is not stating whether results are capped or paginated.

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%, so the schema already documents year, radius, and schoolKeyid. The description's note that schoolKeyid comes from list_schools or get_school_rank largely repeats the schema description, and it adds no meaning for year or radius beyond what is structured.

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 a well-scoped resource: accident locations within a given radius of a school for a given year. The scope is unambiguous, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_location_accident_points, which appears to serve the same data for an arbitrary location.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope (school-centric, radius, year), and it provides a workflow prerequisite by saying schoolKeyid comes from list_schools or get_school_rank. It gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives such as the location-based accident tool.

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