二代健保補充保費

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the rate (2.11%), bonus threshold (4x monthly insured amount), other category thresholds, and the 10 million cap. It also includes a legal disclaimer. However, it does not describe error handling or return format, but the calculation logic is transparent.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value: rate, rules, thresholds, and disclaimer. No wasted words. Appropriate length for the complexity.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core logic and disclaims accuracy. It explains input constraints (e.g., bonus-specific fields) but does not specify output format (likely a number). For a pure calculation tool, this is adequate but could mention return value type.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the calculation context (e.g., bonus requires monthly insured salary and YTD bonus) and the rounding strategies. This helps the agent understand why certain parameters are needed beyond schema 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 the tool calculates the supplementary premium at 2.11% rate, specifying the resource (二代健保補充保費) and distinguishing it from siblings like employer premium or tax withholding. The verb '計算' (calculate) and detailed rule mentions make the purpose unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives like calculate_employer_supplementary_premium or calculate_income_tax_withholding. However, the context of supplementary premium and the sibling list imply its specific use case. No clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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