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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search scope (including 理由書全文) and the fact that results carry case_id, but it fails to mention that full-text search of 理由書 is only performed when 'deep' is true, which could mislead an agent into thinking all searches cover the full text. It also does not disclose default limits or result ordering.

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 a single, dense sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, then specifies search scope and the case_id workflow. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values more thoroughly. It only states that each result includes case_id, leaving out other likely fields (e.g., title, date) and any pagination/ordering behavior. However, given the tool's search nature and the schema's parameter descriptions, it provides the critical link to retrieve full details, which is acceptable but not complete.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the useful linkage that each result has case_id for use with get_taiwan_interpretation, but provides no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 the tool '列舉或全文搜尋釋字與憲判字' (enumerate or full-text search interpretations and constitutional judgments), specifying the resource and action. It also details searchable fields (標題、爭點/案由與理由書全文) and notes that results include case_id for subsequent retrieval. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the resource type is specific enough to orient an agent.

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 hints at a workflow: search using this tool, then pass the returned case_id to get_taiwan_interpretation. This clearly communicates when to use the tool (finding interpretations by keyword or listing) and how it connects to a sibling tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives.

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