taiwan_find_connection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns intermediate nodes and distance ('中間的人與公司節點與相隔層數'), implying a read-only operation. It also mentions '天眼查式盡職調查' to set expectations. No side effects or auth needs are discussed, but the behavior is adequately described for a path-finding tool.

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 block of text that is relatively concise for the information it conveys. It front-loads the main purpose and includes examples. Slightly verbose with extra details like '資料來源：inc.com.tw' but not excessive.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return format (nodes and distance). It covers the essential aspects of the tool's functionality and data source. No mention of limits or pagination, but acceptable for a path-finding tool.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that parameters can be company name, 8-digit unified number, or person name, and provides examples. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 finds the shortest relationship chain between two companies/people using common directors/officers, and provides an analogy to Tianyancha due diligence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like taiwan_company_relations by specifying 'shortest chain' and 'how they connect'.

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 explicitly says 'use for: do these two companies/people have a relationship, how are they connected?' which provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined enough to guide selection.

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