list_categories

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 mentions the tool lists categories with filtering options, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes key usage details. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, data structure), behavioral aspects like safety or performance, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with both parameters ('type' and 'search') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the same filtering options without providing additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('列出' meaning 'list') and resource ('政府採購標的分類代碼' meaning 'government procurement category codes'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_category' or 'search_tenders', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 by mentioning filtering options ('可指定類型' meaning 'can specify type' and '搜尋關鍵字' meaning 'search keyword'), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_category'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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