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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data-source dependency (inputs from search_tenders), adds an availability caveat (bid-opening details as disclosed in the award announcement), and explains analytical value (seeing why the lowest bidder lost). It stops short of a 5 because it does not state edge-case behavior such as what happens when a tender is not found or when bid-opening details are absent.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase, followed by a logical flow: what is returned, why it matters, then where the inputs come from. The content enumeration is dense but earned. The unique-value pitch ('開標實況是別處查不到的...可以看出出價最低的為什麼沒得標') is slightly redundant with the earlier mention but serves a distinct routing 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 2-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining expected returns, and it does so thoroughly: it enumerates the announcement history, amounts, vendor, competition, renewal status, URLs, and bid-opening records. The main gap is edge-case behavior (missing tender, undisclosed bid-opening data), which keeps it from a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by telling the agent where both parameters come from (unit_id and job_number from search_tenders result rows), which is the key semantic needed to construct a correct call. The parameter names themselves are self-explanatory. It doesn't provide format constraints, but the provenance note largely makes up for the absent schema descriptions.

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-resource combination: retrieving a single tender's complete history (單一標案的完整歷程), and enumerates the returned content in detail (announcements, budget/award amounts, winning vendor, competitive landscape, bid-opening details). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly claiming the bid-opening details (開標實況) cannot be found elsewhere, and by positioning search_tenders as the source of its inputs.

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 clear workflow context: unit_id and job_number come from search_tenders result rows, telling the agent this tool is the follow-up detail lookup after a search. It also states a de-facto exclusion, that bid-opening details exist nowhere else. However, it never names an alternative explicitly or states when not to use the tool.

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