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 core behavior — fuzzy/incomplete-name matching and returning official name plus code — but does not disclose result-set behavior (single vs multiple matches), failure behavior when no match is found, or any matching constraints. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Three compact sentences with no waste: purpose is front-loaded, examples follow, and usage guidance closes. Each sentence earns its place and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose, parameter semantics via examples, return content (official name and code), and pre-conditions for related tools. Only edge-case behavior (no match, multiple matches) is unaddressed.

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 0% and the parameter is only titled 'Q', so the description must compensate. It does so via examples like '輸入「台電」找台灣電力公司相關', clarifying that q is an incomplete name fragment of an agency or vendor. This meaningfully fills the schema gap, though it stops short of specifying format constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '用不完整的名稱找機關或廠商的正式名稱與代碼' (use incomplete names to find official names and codes of agencies/vendors), with concrete examples. This makes clear it is a name-resolution/lookup tool and distinguishes it from siblings like search_tenders (tender search) and vendor_report (report generation).

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 explicitly says 'vendor_report / unit_report / compare_vendors 需要正式名稱，先用這個查' — telling the agent to use this tool first when those siblings need an official name but only an incomplete one is available. This names the dependent alternatives and provides clear when-to-use context.

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