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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real payload trait — roster fields included, sources/note/person_in_charge excluded — which is valuable, but it says nothing about read-only nature, not-found behavior, permissions, or response envelope.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with inclusions/exclusions condensed into a parenthetical. Slightly dense but no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back at the field-group level (roster included, three fields excluded), which is the main ambiguity an agent would have. Remaining gaps — error/not-found behavior — are minor at this complexity.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'by facility id' but adds no format, prefix, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema's '機構編號'.

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: retrieve a single facility's details by facility id. The 'single, by id' framing inherently separates it from the list_* and search_facilities siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals this is for when the caller already has an id, versus search_facilities for discovery. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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