check_vendor_tax_number

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

The description includes the HTTP method GET, indicating a read-only operation, and the phrase '是否存在' implies a boolean existence check. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose response format, error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The GET method and existence semantics provide some transparency but leave key behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the full endpoint. There is no filler or redundant content; every word contributes to understanding the tool. It is appropriately sized for a simple validation tool.

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 provides the core purpose and the exact endpoint, making it reasonably complete. It does not explicitly state the return value, but the phrase '是否存在' strongly implies a boolean result. Given the simplicity of the operation, the description covers most necessary context, though it could benefit from a note on the expected response type.

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 already describes the parameter tax_number as '統一編號' (unified business number), and the tool description's '統編' is just an abbreviation of the same term. Thus, the description adds no new semantic value beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not elaborate on format, length, or validation rules.

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 tool's purpose: to check if a unified business number (統編) exists, with the specific GET endpoint. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool check_vendor_user_email, which validates vendor user emails instead. The verb 'check' and the resource 'tax number' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention that it is specifically for vendor tax numbers or suggest when to choose it over other validation tools. There is no context about prerequisites or use cases.

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