run_tw_companies_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real value, but says nothing about pagination (start_page/max_items exist), rate limits, or result ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and source, followed by a compact cost note. The colon-list of return fields is informative rather than wasteful, though slightly dense.

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?

For a search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and noting the point cost. The only meaningful gap is pagination behavior, which the schema partially covers via start_page and max_items.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters (keyword, status, max_items, start_page). The description only echoes the lookup key ('company name or 統一編號') and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Search the Taiwan company registry (MOEA)') and names the two lookup keys (company name or 統一編號). It also enumerates the returned fields, making the search-scope clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling run_tw_companies detail tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies when to use it — when you have a company name or registration number — but gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not name an alternative tool (e.g. the full-record sibling). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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