get_points

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that output is raw official text rather than instructions for the AI, that the data must be verified against the current official source, and that it is not validated for hospital deployment or claim determination. These are meaningful behavioral warnings beyond a simple 'get' statement.

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-loads the core purpose before the constraint flags and Chinese guardrails. It is slightly fragmented by the key-value flag list, but every part contributes useful information with no real filler.

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?

The description gives strong safety and usage context, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. However, the total absence of parameter guidance is a major gap: an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without knowing what 'code' represents and how to provide 'as_of'.

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, but it does not explain either parameter. 'code' and 'as_of' are not mentioned, leaving the agent to guess what values are valid and what format 'as_of' should take.

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 opens with 'Get current NHI points only,' which is a specific verb-resource pairing and the word 'only' narrows the scope. It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.

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 provides explicit usage constraints: decision_support_only=true, not_for_claim_determination=true, not_validated_for_hospital_deployment=true, and the Chinese instruction '不得輸入病人資料' (do not input patient data). This gives clear when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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