get_monthly_labor_pension

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the upstream failure issue ('Expect a server-side error response until MAYO fixes it'), which is a significant behavioral trait. However, it omits other useful context such as whether authentication is required, what the response format looks like on success, or any rate limits, leaving the transparency incomplete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or excessive detail.

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 simple read-oriented tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and a critical known issue. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over related monthly-benefit siblings and does not describe what a successful response contains (beyond 'detail list'), leaving some context missing.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for all three parameters (search_date, insurance_no, language) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'monthly labor pension (勞退) detail list for a unit, which clearly establishes what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_monthly_labor_insurance and get_monthly_nhi, which target different benefit types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_monthly_labor_insurance or get_monthly_nhi. The known issue warning is operationally relevant but does not help with tool selection or context of use.

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