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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context by noting this is a 'third-party mirror' and that 'some fields may be blank', indicating potential data incompleteness and reliability constraints beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and required parameters; the second lists return values and a caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately lists what is returned: agency contact info, procurement category, budget/award amount, deadlines, status, and a PCC link. It also notes the third-party mirror and potential blank fields, providing a complete picture for a single-tender detail tool.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the note that they come from a search result. The description goes further by explicitly naming the source as 'a taiwan_search_tenders result', linking the parameters to a specific sibling tool and clarifying their provenance.

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 begins with 'Get full detail for one Taiwan government procurement tender', clearly stating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like taiwan_search_tenders (which searches) and taiwan_list_by_date by focusing on retrieving full detail for a single tender using specific identifiers.

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 that unit_id and job_number must come from a taiwan_search_tenders result, providing a clear prerequisite and context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives, but the search-then-detail flow is clearly implied.

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