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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of the record, clarifies that the award/budget ratio is based on all evaluation cases, lists the returned data facets, and requires a disclaimer. It does not mention not-found behavior or read-only status, but the disclosed scope is strong for a profile lookup tool.

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 and front-loaded with the resource type, followed by a tight list of contents and two necessary operational instructions. There is no repetition 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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers input requirements, output scope, metric basis, and response behavior. The only minor gaps are handling of missing records and exact output formatting.

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 has one 'name' string parameter with no schema-level description. The tool description compensates by stating the name must be complete and instructing the agent to first use search_committee_members when uncertain, giving the parameter meaningful operational semantics beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly identifies a specific resource—採購評選委員個人紀錄 for an individual committee member—and enumerates exact contents such as case counts, date range, current position, agencies, category ratios, co-appearing members, vendor summaries, and award/budget ratio. It also differentiates this from search_committee_members by instructing that name lookup should happen first if uncertain.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: the name must be complete, and search_committee_members should be used first when the name is uncertain. It also specifies that the answer must include the collegial-system disclaimer, which is a concrete output requirement.

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