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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, the description adds value by disclosing the cross-board search scope and the exact return fields. It does not, however, mention result cardinality, pagination, or how the limit interacts with matches.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and scope before the illustrative example. Every clause 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 three-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers input keys, board scope, and returned fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 query, market, and limit are already documented in the schema. The description restates the identifying inputs but adds no format, matching, or ranking semantics beyond what the schema provides — 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find a Taiwan-listed security'), the identifying keys (name, English abbreviation, numeric code), and the scope (TWSE + TPEx). Also enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like taiwan_stock_quote or taiwan_company_profile.

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 closing clause ('the lookup that turns "Foxconn" or 鴻海 into 2317 before pricing it') gives clear usage context and implies it precedes pricing tools. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the when-to-use is unambiguous.

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