search_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the keyword matches titles only, source options are enumerated, the year is a ROC year, and the two-step retrieval flow plus the pipe-delimited output format of get_statistics are explained. It omits pagination behavior, result ordering/limits, and any auth/permission context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded on the first line, followed by a compact source list, the result-handling flow, and a clean per-argument breakdown. Slightly verbose in the source enumeration, but every element is informative and non-redundant given the empty schema.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter meaning, source scope, and the retrieval handoff to get_statistics. It is largely sufficient, with only minor gaps around paging semantics and result-size expectations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all four parameters: keyword (matches title), source (with candidate values and 'blank = all'), year (ROC, 'blank = latest'), and page. Only 'page' is left vague (page count/size unstated), so it nearly but not fully compensates.

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?

States a specific verb (搜尋) and resource (官方法律統計表與報告) and enumerates the exact corpora it covers (司法統計年報/月報、法務統計、犯罪狀況及其分析). An agent can distinguish it from search_judgments or search_regulations without opening any schema.

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 establishes the workflow explicitly: result ids are passed to get_statistics to retrieve the table text or full report, which clarifies when to use this tool versus the retrieval sibling. It does not state exclusions or when another statistics tool (e.g. get_sentencing_statistics) is preferable, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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