get_monthly_nhi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses a critical behavioral trait: the endpoint is known to fail upstream and will likely return a server-side error. This goes beyond a typical read-only description and alerts the agent to an important operational caveat.

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: the first states the purpose clearly, the second adds a critical warning. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or unnecessary 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a critical failure warning. It does not describe return values, but the known issue is the most important contextual detail an agent needs for this tool.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (search_date, insurance_no, language), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('monthly National Health Insurance (健保) detail list for a unit'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_monthly_labor_insurance and get_monthly_labor_pension. The scope ('for a unit') adds clarity.

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 implies usage when monthly NHI detail is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present, so usage context is only implicit.

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