consent_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially discloses behavior: it mentions default scope (ophthalmology + completed) and explains the return_id flag. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what credentials are required beyond the schema, or what the default return format is, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and parameter details listed separately. It avoids unnecessary words, but the structure is slightly fragmented due to mixing Chinese and English and the lack of a cohesive explanatory paragraph.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers only a fraction of the needed context. Missing details include date range semantics, credential usage, default return behavior, and differentiation from sibling tools, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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. It explains only two of seven parameters (target_keyword and return_id), while the required parameters (eip_id, eip_password, hisno) and date fields (start_date, end_date) remain undocumented. This is insufficient for effective usage.

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 searches for consent forms ('搜尋同意書') and specifies default filters (ophthalmology + completed), giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like consent_list or consent_opschedule, so it falls short of a 5.

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 for searching consent forms with default filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as consent_list or consent_opschedule. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so it only offers implied context.

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