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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute one real behavioural fact beyond the name: the service only covers three specific municipalities, which is a hard coverage limit an agent cannot get from the schema. However it says nothing about whether results are ordered by collection time, how multiple filters combine, or what happens for an unsupported city.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the scope (the three cities) is front-loaded as the key constraint. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a five-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is thin. Nothing indicates what a result looks like (collection point, time, weekday), how `time` and `weekday` interact (is weekday defaulted to today?), or how `district` and `keyword` overlap despite the schema noting district may be omitted. The complete schema prevents total failure, but the description does not prepare the agent for the tool's behaviour.

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, and the description earns above that by effectively enumerating the valid values for the free-text `city` parameter — the three supported municipalities — which the schema cannot express because `city` is an unconstrained string with no enum. It adds nothing about the other four parameters, but they are already fully documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource (查詢…垃圾車定點收運時刻) and scopes it to three named cities, so an agent immediately knows this is a garbage-truck schedule lookup. It is clearly distinct from every sibling (invoice, outage, stock, TRA/THSR timetable tools). It stops short of 5 because it never mentions the filtering capabilities (time, keyword, weekday, district) that define the tool's actual behaviour.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The only implicit guidance is the coverage boundary: it serves only 新北市, 臺北市 and 臺中市, which hints that other cities are out of scope but never says so explicitly or states what happens then. An agent must infer everything about selecting this tool from the name alone.

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