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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it reads a local catalog with no upstream call, matches against dataset codes, Chinese descriptions and column names, requires every space-separated keyword to match, and sorts by relevance. Only minor gaps (no note on result shape/pagination) remain.

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?

Purpose and the 'no upstream call' fact are front-loaded well, but the description is roughly doubled by a Chinese block that largely restates the English text, and its scope examples bloat it further. Much of the length is translation redundancy rather than additive information.

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?

The tool is a search with an output schema present, so return values need not be described. Goal, invocation trigger, matching rules, filtering conventions, and the safe read-only nature are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: it explains keyword matching rules (Chinese or English, space-separated, all must match), the taifex/ code-prefix convention, and a concrete tag value ('期貨與選擇權') for futures/options filtering that the schema only gestures at.

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 and resource ('Search the catalog of TWSE OpenAPI and TAIFEX OAS datasets') and immediately frames the output purpose ('get the dataset_id to fetch'), which cleanly separates it from dataset.get and dataset.describe. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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?

Gives a clear workflow trigger ('取資料前先用這個找 dataset_id' / search before fetching) plus a strong heuristic: search before concluding the exchange lacks a dataset, listing the surprisingly broad categories covered. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (dataset.get / dataset.describe) explicitly as the next/alternative step.

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