run_tw_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned field set and a cost signal ('15 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid identifier.

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 in the first clause, followed by the field enumeration and pricing. The long field list is justified because no output schema exists, and every item earns its place as return-value information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it documents the single input and its cost. For a single-record lookup this is largely complete, with only minor gaps around error/auth behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents the 'company' input. The description's '統一編號 or registry link' merely restates what the schema description and example already convey, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get one company from the Taiwan registry (MOEA)') and distinguishes itself from the search sibling via 'one company'. It doesn't explicitly name run_tw_companies_search as the alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives input guidance ('by 統一編號 or registry link'), which implies you use this when you already have an identifier. However, it never states when to use this vs run_tw_companies_search for name/keyword discovery, leaving the choice to inference.

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