taiwan_gov_tender_by_company

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

No annotations provided; description lacks disclosure of read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Only implies data retrieval through its description of returning results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core functionality. Every sentence adds value: first describes function and output, second gives usage context and data source. 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?

Lists returned fields, provides usage scenario, and cites data source. Lacks details on pagination, limits, or authentication, but is sufficient for a simple query tool. Should ideally mention if it returns current or historical data.

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?

Parameter 'company' is well-described in schema (with example). Description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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?

Clearly states it queries a company's government procurement cases, listing specific return fields (tender name, agency, announcement type, date, related companies). Differentiates from sibling tools like taiwan_gov_tender_search by being company-specific.

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?

Provides context for use in due diligence (可搭配公司查核做盡職調查). Implies usage when you have a company name, but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or state when not to use.

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