taiwan_person_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses matching by name, potential same-name matches, data source, and output (count and example companies). It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search, this is adequate.

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 very concise: a few sentences in Chinese that front-load the core purpose, output, and data source. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains input, output (count and examples), and caveats. It does not specify result limits or format, but these are minor omissions.

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 'name' is fully described in the schema (example: 郭台銘). The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only reiterates the purpose. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score is 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?

Description clearly states the tool searches for Taiwanese companies where a person serves as responsible person/director/supervisor. It specifies the output (number of related companies and examples) and distinguishes from sibling tools like taiwan_company_search (company-by-name) and taiwan_company_profile (detailed info).

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 checking person-company relationships and networks. It includes a caveat that same names may cause ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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