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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions real-time detection and lists technology categories. It does not disclose return format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 brief with two sentences, but the second sentence ('輸入網址或網域') is redundant with the parameter schema. It is concise but could be slightly improved by removing redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description fails to describe the return structure of detected technologies. It only lists input and examples, leaving the agent unaware of the output format, which is essential for correct invocation.

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% for the 'url' parameter, and the description simply restates '輸入網址或網域' without adding new semantic value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient definition.

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 detects e-commerce technologies (storefront platforms, payment gateways, ad pixels, analytics) for any website, using a specific verb ('偵測') and resource ('網站使用的電商技術'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_sites_by_tech' which solves the inverse problem.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_store_safety' or 'find_sites_by_tech'. It only describes the core function without contextual selection advice.

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