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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it's a third-party mirror with best-effort results, and lists return fields. No contradiction with annotations, and additional caveats improve transparency.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, parameters, return fields, and follow-up tool. Front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant phrasing, every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 2 params, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description is complete. It also fills the lack of an output schema by listing the return fields (tender id, title, agency, announcement type, date, category) and explains the result structure. The third-party caveat rounds out the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both params have descriptions. The description adds further meaning by clarifying 'query' is a title keyword with Chinese/English examples ('電腦', 'AI', '消防'), and 'page' is 1-based. This exceeds the schema baseline.

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 searches Taiwan government procurement tenders by title keyword, specifying the source (政府電子採購網/PCC via g0v mirror). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning taiwan_get_tender for full detail and implying keyword-based search vs other 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?

It provides explicit follow-up guidance (use taiwan_get_tender with returned unit_id + job_number for full detail), and notes results are best-effort. It doesn't explicitly compare against taiwan_list_by_date or taiwan_search_by_company, but offers enough context for the intended use case.

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