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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it explains the date conversion from Minguo to ISO, notes the source (Ministry of Economic Affairs), and clarifies that the tool condenses six separate fields into one status answer. This adds behavioral transparency without contradicting any annotation.

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 moderately long but every sentence contributes: purpose, scope, transformation, answer, and source. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant phrasing. It could be slightly more compact (e.g., trimming the 'which the raw record leaves...' clause) but overall it is well-structured and efficient for the information it conveys.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description explains what the tool returns (legal standing and ISO-converted dates) and why it exists (condensing six fields). It also provides the data source. It does not detail the exact output format or error handling (e.g., what happens for an invalid BAN), but for a single-lookup tool this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'ban', including a clear description of the 8-digit 統一編號 and an example. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter—it doesn't mention format constraints, valid ranges, or edge cases. Since the schema is already fully descriptive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra value here.

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 opens with a precise statement of the tool's function: reporting the current legal standing of a Taiwanese company by 統一編號, enumerating the possible statuses (registered, dissolved, revoked, declared suspension). It also distinguishes the tool from the raw record by noting it consolidates six era-coded fields into a single answer, and it names the specific question it answers ('is this Taiwanese counterparty still a going concern on the register'). This clearly separates it from siblings like twcompany_by_ban (full record) and twcompany_search_name (name search).

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 implies the use case—when you need to determine if a Taiwanese company is still active—but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it. It does not reference sibling tools like twcompany_by_ban or twcompany_search_name, nor does it say 'use this when you only need the status, not the full record.' The guidance is clear from context but not made explicit, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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