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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral transparency. It discloses the official data source and data license, and lists return fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or error handling, though '搜尋' (search) implies a safe read operation.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and data source. It efficiently includes return fields and licensing without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly lists the key return fields (bill number, name, unit, proposer, co-signers, status, PDF/DOC links), making the tool's output understandable. It lacks details about pagination or default behavior when no parameters are given, but these are partially covered by schema defaults.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates four of five parameters (keyword, proposer, term, bill status) as query criteria, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description.

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 states '搜尋立法院議案提案' (search Legislative Yuan bills) with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on bills and mentioning the official data source (data.ly.gov.tw), unlike tools for laws, interpretations, or judgments.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when searching for legislative bills) and the data source connection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list shows other tools for different legal documents, making the context clear enough.

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