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

無任何 annotation，描述承擔全部行為揭露責任。描述說“回傳最新 10 筆”，透露了輸出數量限制，但未提及權限要求、只讀性、或返回欄位格式。作為一個具抓取操作（僅回傳）的工具，缺少對響應結構或異常行為的明確描述，但並未與任何註記矛盾。

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?

描述簡潔精簡，用一句話概括功能（回傳樣態與目的），並加上“回傳最新 10 筆”的行為關鍵數據，無多餘字詞，開頭即點明主題，結構良好。

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?

考量到該工具無參數、無輸出 schema，且屬簡易列表回傳，描述提供了“最新 10 筆”這個數量限制，足以讓代理了解基本行為。但未指明回傳欄位（如投標編號、機關名稱等），雖然沒有輸出 schema，但對代理而言仍稍欠缺。不過在簡單情境下已算完整。

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?

該工具沒有參數（參數數為0），schema 欄位說明覆蓋率為100%，因此描述無需補充參數語義。依規則，當無參數時基準分為4，描述確實無需再添加參數相關資訊。

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?

描述明确说明工具返回的是“流標機會”——反复流标、至今未決標的案子，動詞“回傳”清楚指向操作，資源名稱與內容相呼應。它與兄弟工具（search_tenders、get_tender）有明確區隔，因為它聚焦於特定狀態（流標）且無需參數。

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?

描述中“競爭者少、機關急著發包，是新廠商切入的好標的”提供了使用情境（適合新廠商尋找切入點），但沒有明確說明何時不該使用此工具，也沒有提到替代工具（如search_tenders）的比較。缺少具體的當用/不用條件，僅有隱含場景。

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