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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses data provenance (政府電子採購網公告的事實), required source citation, the handling of appeal status, and the legal consequence under Article 103. It does not describe output shape or error behavior, but the disclosed context is materially useful.

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 four dense sentences with no filler: scope, name requirement, source/citation requirement, and legal effect. The most identifying information is front-loaded, and every sentence carries necessary guidance.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics, source, required disclaimer, and legal significance. It does not specify the exact return format or how strictly name matching works, but it provides enough for correct invocation in most cases.

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 for the single 'name' parameter. It adds the key constraint that 'name' must be the formal full name, which goes beyond the bare schema. Examples or exact-match rules would push it higher, but this is sufficient for a one-parameter tool.

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 identifies the resource precisely: 政府採購法第 101 條 vendor compliance records, and enumerates the included record types (拒絕往來、註銷拒絕往來、停權案例). It stops short of 5 because it lacks an explicit verb such as 查詢, though the intent is unmistakable.

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?

It provides clear operational guidance: the name must be the formal full name, results must cite the government e-procurement source, and a specific disclaimer about appeal results must be included. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope is distinctive enough for an agent to select this tool over vendor_report or vendor_committee.

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