search_specifications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It genuinely discloses the empty-keyword list-all behavior, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose what the search returns (matches, summaries, metadata), result limits, or whether results are full content — significant for a read/search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the keyword behavior follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter search tool with fully documented params, the description is adequate: it covers the search purpose and the empty-keyword case. Gaps remain: no output-schema exists so return-value behavior goes undescribed, and no guidance distinguishes this from list_chapters, which an agent would need to route correctly among four siblings.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; both chapter and keyword are already documented with examples. The description adds one extra semantic — the behavior when keyword is empty — which is a real but marginal addition beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — '搜尋施工綱要規範' (search construction outline specifications) — and adds a behavioral clause about listing all specs when keyword is empty. It is distinguishable from sibling download tools at the verb level, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with (list_chapters).

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 gives one implicit usage instruction: leave keyword empty to list all specifications in a chapter. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use versus list_chapters (which likely also lists data) or the download tools, and no exclusions. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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