search_ivd_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is decision-support only, not validated for hospital deployment, not for procurement or equivalence, that results are summaries only, that 'unknown' has a specific meaning, and that returned content is official data rather than AI instructions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically lists guardrails and caveats. It is dense but each clause adds important safety or usage information. The repeated flag-style statements could be more compact, but they are not wasted.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers most operational context: result granularity, limit bounds, alternative for full fields, and meaning of 'unknown'. It is slightly incomplete because it omits offset and manufacturer semantics and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search tools, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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. It adds meaning for limit ('limit 為 1–5') and implicitly for query by prohibiting patient data. However, it does not describe the offset or manufacturer parameters at all, leaving those gaps for the agent to infer from schema titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search TFDA IVD candidates (included, ambiguous, unknown) with review coverage.' This clearly identifies the tool's scope. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling search tools like search_ivd or search_reviewed_ivd, though it does point to get_license for full license details.

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 gives explicit usage constraints and alternatives: 'limit 為 1–5' for result limits, '完整欄位請用 get_license 查單一許可證字號' for full-field lookup, and strong exclusions such as 'not_for_procurement_or_equivalence=true' and '不得輸入病人資料'. This clearly tells an agent when and how to use the tool, and when not to.

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