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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing that this is a third-party mirror and results are 'best-effort', which implies potential incompleteness or staleness. It also states what the tool returns (id, title, agency, announcement type, associated companies), which is useful. These go beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action ('List') and subject. It packs essential details—format, default, output fields, and caveat—into four short sentences. While not as terse as a two-sentence ideal, every sentence contributes useful information and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the purpose, the exact date format, the default value, the returned fields, and the best-effort nature of the third-party mirror. This covers all aspects needed for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter, including its format and default behavior. The description repeats this same information ('Pass a date as YYYYMMDD... defaults to today') without adding new semantic detail. Thus, the description provides no value beyond the schema, consistent with the baseline score of 3.

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 lists Taiwan government procurement tenders published on a given date, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tenders'). It also implies differentiation from siblings by focusing on date-based listing, and includes the source (PCC) and the g0v mirror. This distinguishes it from search-by-company or general search tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list tenders published on a specific date, with the option and syntax for the date parameter and a default to today. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide exclusions, such as 'for keyword search use taiwan_search_tenders', so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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