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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, yet the description adds genuine context: filings are mandatory same-day disclosures, and it spells out the returned fields (company, timestamp, subject, full statement text). It omits pagination behavior for the limit parameter, but with no output schema the return-field disclosure is valuable.

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?

Two dense sentences plus two example queries, front-loaded with the core definition and never restating the tool name or title. Every element 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?

For a zero-required-parameter, read-only query tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: scope, covered event types, and return fields. Without an output schema it could still say more about pagination or ordering, but nothing critical is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description only implies the symbol/keyword filtering use cases via example questions and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names the specific resource (same-day mandatory corporate disclosures 重大訊息 filed by TWSE-listed companies) and enumerates the material event types covered, immediately distinguishing it from siblings like taiwan_company_profile or taiwan_monthly_revenue.

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?

Two example questions ('what did Taiwanese companies announce today', 'any TSMC announcements') make the intended context clear, including the symbol-filtering use case. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it.

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