list_tenders_by_date

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 date format and a limit parameter, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no tenders exist for the date. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a necessary example for date format. There is zero waste, and every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the action and format.

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, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and date format but lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only status, error handling), output format, or detailed parameter guidance. For a tool with this complexity and no structured support, it should do more to compensate.

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 schema already documents all parameters (date, type_filter, limit) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the date format example, but does not provide additional semantic context for parameters like 'type_filter' usage or 'limit' implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('列出' meaning 'list') and resource ('標案公告' meaning 'tender announcements') with a precise scope ('指定日期' meaning 'specified date'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tenders_by_unit' (by unit) and 'search_tenders' (general search) by emphasizing date-based listing.

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 listing tender announcements by date, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tenders_by_unit' (by unit) or 'search_tenders' (keyword search). It provides context (date-based listing) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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