taiwan_company_relations

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's scope (shareholders, subsidiaries, ultimate parent, group size, connected companies via directors) and data source (inc.com.tw). It also notes '推估最終母公司' (estimated ultimate parent), indicating a non-definitive result. However, it does not address rate limits, authentication, or data freshness.

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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists its outputs. It is moderately concise given the complexity, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 (multiple relationship types), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good overview of the tool's capabilities and use case. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling, but is adequate for an agent to understand when to invoke it.

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 only parameter, unified_business_no, is fully described in the input schema (8-digit number, example). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates '用 8 位統編' but adds no new semantic detail 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 clearly specifies the tool's function: given an 8-digit business number, it retrieves corporate shareholders, subsidiaries, estimated ultimate parent, group size, and connected companies via common directors. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiwan_company_profile (basic info) and taiwan_person_companies (person-centric).

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 states the use case: '查母子公司、集團版圖、關係人用' (for checking parent-subsidiary, group landscape, related parties). It implicitly contrasts with sibling tools (e.g., for simple company info use taiwan_company_profile), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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