compare_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful status/safety context: deprecated, decision-support-only, verify official source, and not for procurement/equivalence. It does not, however, describe what the operation actually does or what happens when invoked.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important signal, 'Deprecated'. It packs several constraints into one short block, though the repeated '=true' style is somewhat telegraphic.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description leaves major gaps: the core purpose, query semantics, and selection criteria relative to sibling tools are absent. The warnings are useful, but an agent cannot confidently determine how to invoke or interpret this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds the restriction '不得輸入病人資料' (do not input patient data). It never explains what 'query' means or how 'limit' behaves, so it does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the domain and status ('Deprecated TFDA operation') but never states that the tool compares products. It remains a vague purpose statement and relies on the tool name for the actual function.

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?

It provides strong when-not-to-use signals: deprecated, not validated for hospital deployment, not for procurement or equivalence, and no patient data. However, it does not state positive conditions for use or name an alternative sibling tool.

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