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

無任何 annotations，描述必須承擔行為說明責任。描述說明了 unit 可接受代碼或全名且會自動查代碼，但未揭露是否為唯讀操作、回傳格式、資料時效或潛在限制。以報告型工具而言，這些資訊對 AI 正確使用有幫助，但描述僅部分提供。

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?

描述精煉且結構良好，先列報告內容，再解釋參數格式，最後提供適用情境。沒有冗餘詞句，每一句都有資訊價值，且重點資訊置於前段。

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?

對於單一參數且無輸出 schema 的工具，描述已提供呼叫所需的足夠資訊：參數格式、報告內容、適用問題。但未說明回傳資料的呈現方式（如文字或結構化），也無提及錯誤情境或需注意事項，故在完整性上仍有小幅缺口。

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 僅有 unit 的型別與欄位名，描述明顯補足了語意：說明 unit 可以是機關代碼或全名，並舉例（如 3.76.54）。因為 schema 覆蓋率 0%，描述成功補償參數意義，僅未給出完整格式規範，故給 4 分。

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?

描述清楚指出工具的用途是產生機關情報報告，並具體列出報告涵蓋的資料類別（發包規模、供應商、競爭程度、發案旺月、固定週期標案等），與其他兄弟工具如 vendor_report、search_tenders 明顯區隔。參數 unit 的用法也有說明。

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?

描述明確指出「適合回答『這個機關好不好投』『它什麼時候會再發案』」，提供了清楚的使用情境，讓 AI 能判斷何時選用此工具。但未提及何時不該使用或明確的替代工具名稱，因此未達 5 分。

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