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

With no annotations, the description discloses the three checks performed (fraud list, recording, company registration). It implies a safe read operation. It does not mention output format or limitations (e.g., Taiwan-only), but the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded with the main action and key details. No redundant information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenario, and behavior. Could explicitly mention output nature, but not essential.

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% with domain described as '網站網址或網域'. The tool description adds context about Taiwan online shopping but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking the safety of a Taiwan online shopping website by comparing against fraud lists, checking archiving, and company registration. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (prices, products, tech) by focusing on security/scam verification.

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 explicitly states when to use (when users ask about safety/scam/trust before buying). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tool list context makes it clear.

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