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

With no annotations, the description discloses the data source is official direct connection, lists returned data types, and provides data licensing (CC-BY-4.0 compatible). It clearly implies a read-only query, though it omits rate limits and error behavior.

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?

Three sentences in a single paragraph; each sentence adds value: core function, differentiation, license. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers data source, return items, use case, and license. It lacks response format details but that's acceptable given schema and low 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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds context by saying '該法所有修法提案' which ties the law parameter to the all-proposals scope, but doesn't go beyond 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?

Description uses specific verb '查' (query) with clear resource (立法院開放資料平台) and output scope (proposers, co-signers, status, document links). It also differentiates from sibling '修法沿革' by stating it supplements the upstream legislative process.

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?

States the tool fills the gap '補「修法沿革」上游的立法過程' (supplementing the upstream of amendment history), implying it should be used when needing proposal-level details rather than final law versions. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools but provides clear contextual trigger.

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