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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals one meaningful behavior: results are ranked by the number of review cases and limited to the top few. But it does not disclose match semantics (fuzzy vs exact), the exact limit, whether the search is read-only, or what fields are returned.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and search criteria, then gives the result behavior. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 search tool, the description is mostly sufficient for selection and invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unclear details such as exact result limit, returned fields, and how to choose among the many committee-related sibling tools.

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 schema provides no description for the required q parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates by specifying that q can be a name, current position, or agency name. This gives an agent enough semantic grounding to populate the sole parameter correctly.

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 the action ('找' / search), the resource ('採購評選委員' / procurement evaluation committee members), and the query dimensions (name, current position, or agency name). It also adds a distinguishing result behavior (returns the top members by number of review cases), which differentiates it from sibling tools like committee_member or evaluation_committee.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when you need to find committee members by name, title, or agency. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with related siblings such as committee_member or vendor_committee, and it does not state when not to use it.

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