taiwan_compare_companies

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 discloses the data source and return fields but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or behavior on invalid IDs. For a read-only comparison tool, this is adequate but could be improved.

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 with a clear purpose and a list of returned fields. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (single array parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description fully explains input requirements and output fields. It includes the data source and intended use case.

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 has 100% description coverage, with a single required parameter 'ids' described as '2–5 個公司統編或名稱'. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 compares 2-5 Taiwanese companies side-by-side and lists specific data points returned (responsible person, capital, age, status, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like company_profile (single company) by focusing on multi-company comparison.

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 supplier selection or competitor analysis, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tool names (e.g., taiwan_company_profile) suggest appropriate alternatives for single-company queries.

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