投保單位（雇主）補充保費

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the calculation formula, rate, and caveat that results are for reference only. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects, permissions, or error handling beyond the formula.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the key formula and rate. Every word contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is nearly complete. It explains the formula, rate, rounding options, and caveat. It is missing explicit info on the return value format (presumably a number), but the use case makes it obvious.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds context like '無上限' and the formula, but the schema already explains the parameters well. The description provides additional value by explaining the rounding strategies and the reference-only nature.

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 title and description explicitly state the tool calculates employer supplementary premium for National Health Insurance with the formula, rate (2.11%), and no cap. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate_supplementary_premium' (likely for employees) and other calculation tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'calculate_supplementary_premium' or other payroll tools. While the name and formula imply it's for employer premiums, there is no direct guidance on selection criteria or when not to use it.

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