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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it is a 'third-party mirror' with 'best-effort' results, meaning data may be incomplete or delayed. It also describes the return fields, which is valuable given the lack of an output schema.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage instructions, and return value. It is compact, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the essential information: the source, the query format, examples, the shape of results, and a caveat about reliability. Sibling tools are distinct, and the schema covers parameter details. No critical gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'query' expects a Chinese company name and includes examples, but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It does not mention the 'page' parameter in the description, though the schema already handles it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('Taiwan government procurement tenders') and the key dimension ('by company / vendor name'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like taiwan_list_by_date (by date) and taiwan_get_tender (likely fetch by id) by focusing on company-based lookup.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you have a company name and want to find tenders a company bid on or won. It provides example queries and notes the Chinese-language requirement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, which would make it a 5.

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