get_tender_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned but doesn't address key behavioral aspects: it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by '取得'), mention error conditions (e.g., invalid unit_id or job_number), discuss performance or rate limits, or describe the response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('取得單一標案的詳細資訊') and then elaborates on the content included. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly noting it's for single tenders vs. lists).

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's complexity (simple lookup with 2 required parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, response structure) that would be helpful for an agent. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets the baseline for a straightforward 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (unit_id and job_number) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying that these are used to identify a single tender. Since the schema already provides full coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't add value but doesn't detract either.

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: '取得單一標案的詳細資訊' (get detailed information for a single tender). It specifies the verb (取得/get) and resource (標案/tender), and lists the types of information included (機關資料、採購資料、招標資料、領投開標資訊等完整內容). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tenders_by_date' or 'search_tenders', which likely return multiple or filtered results rather than single tender details.

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. It doesn't mention that this is for single tender details (as opposed to listing or searching multiple tenders), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the description's focus on '單一標案' (single tender) and the required parameters, but this is implicit rather than explicit guidance.

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