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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool uses an offline data snapshot (implying data may not be real-time) and promises immediate response. It also clearly states it searches names only, not full text. These are useful behavioral traits beyond the basic 'search' verb.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. It efficiently packs return fields, data snapshot, and performance characteristics without any fluff. Every clause serves a purpose.

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 search tool, the description covers the essential aspects: search scope, return fields, data freshness, and performance. It does not explicitly describe pagination (but the schema does) or differentiate from siblings (covered in purpose/guidelines). Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (keyword, offset, exclude_abolished), with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, such as examples or edge cases, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('搜尋' / search) and resource ('法規名稱' / regulation names), with a scope of 11,700+ regulations (laws + commands) and defines the return fields (name, pcode, status). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools such as search_taiwan_laws or 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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or point to any sibling tool for different use cases. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and scope, which is not sufficient given the presence of closely related search tools.

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