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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses real-time querying and that no copies are saved, and it identifies the source system. It also notes the coverage limit. However, it omits potential rate limits, error handling, or whether authentication is required. Still, the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and not redundant.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the action and return fields, the second adds scope and behavioral attributes. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant information or filler.

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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, behavior, and what is returned (document number, date, summary, URL). It lacks mention of result ordering, empty-result behavior, or pagination details, but these are not critical for basic use. The coverage is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool appropriately.

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 67% (keyword and doc_types have descriptions; limit does not). The description aligns with the schema by mentioning the document types and providing context, but it does not add new meaning to parameters. Limit remains undocumented in both schema and description, though its meaning is fairly obvious.

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 clearly specifies the action (search), the resource (法務部主管法規查詢系統), and the document types (行政函釋、法規諮詢意見、法律問題座談等), plus the return fields. The mention of '法務部' and the specific system URL distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_taiwan_interpretations.

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 description provides clear context: coverage is limited to MOJ-administered documents and it is a real-time query. This implies when to use the tool (MOJ administrative interpretations) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The scope is clear enough for differentiation, yet exclusions are not spelled out.

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