get_gazette_agendas

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool returns a JSON string and raises exceptions with Chinese error messages, and mentions pagination and custom output fields. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though likely safe) or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves some transparency gaps.

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 follows a structured docstring format with Args, Returns, Raises sections, which aids readability. However, it is somewhat verbose and repeats parameter information that is already in the schema. Some redundancy could be trimmed without loss of clarity.

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 the tool has an output schema (reducing the need to describe return structure), the description adequately covers the tool's functionality: pagination, custom fields, error handling. It lacks usage guidance vs siblings, but for the tool's complexity (7 params), it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for each parameter (e.g., gazette_id: '1137701', limit: '建議不超過100') and clarifying the purpose of output_fields. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 clearly states it retrieves a list of gazette agendas for a specific gazette, using the verb '取得' (get) and specific resource '公報目錄列表' (gazette agenda list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_gazette' (which likely gets the gazette itself) and 'list_gazette_agendas' (which lists all).

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The description only implies usage through parameter descriptions (e.g., filtering by volume, term) but lacks clear when-to-use advice.

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