taiwan_company_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it enumerates all checks performed (dissolution, government procurement blacklist, OFAC/UN sanctions, FSC penalties, judicial cases, labor law penalties, environmental penalties) and outputs (risk level, red flags, responsible person, stock price for listed companies). It also cites the data source (inc.com.tw).

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 paragraph that efficiently conveys all necessary information without being wordy. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullets), but the information density is high and front-loaded with the core action '查核...'.

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 risk categories, no output schema, 2 parameters), the description is exceptionally complete: it explains input format, auto-resolution, all checks performed, output elements (risk level, red flags, responsible person, stock price), and data source. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains that the company name can be an abbreviation (e.g., '台積電') and is auto-resolved, and that the two parameters are mutually exclusive ('二擇一'). This helps the agent choose correctly.

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: checking company risks (due diligence red flags) using an 8-digit unified business number or company name, and returning risk level, red flags, responsible person, and stock price for listed companies. It differentiates from sibling tools like taiwan_bulk_due_diligence (bulk check) and taiwan_company_name_check (name-only check).

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 specifies input options (unified business number or company name with auto-resolution for abbreviations) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like taiwan_bulk_due_diligence or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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