搜尋採購單

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

無 annotations 提供，描述必須承擔行為揭露責任。描述說明了關鍵字比對範圍（po_number/name）、可選狀態篩選與回傳筆數限制，但未提及回傳格式、錯誤行為或權限需求，屬於最低必要資訊，未達充分透明。

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?

描述僅用兩句話即包含用途、比對欄位、可選篩選、回傳限制與使用範例，重點前置，無冗詞或重複資訊，結構精簡。

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?

工具為搜尋型，無輸出 schema，描述已提供搜尋方式、篩選條件與筆數限制等核心資訊，足以讓代理安全呼叫。缺少回傳資料結構細節，但在無輸出 schema 下仍屬可接受的完整度。

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 對 3 個參數的覆蓋率達 100%，描述未額外補充參數的格式或邊界，僅以實例說明 limit 與 status 的用法，但未提供超越 schema 的語意，因此維持基線分數。

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?

描述明確指出工具用途為『依關鍵字搜尋採購單』，並具體說明比對欄位（po_number 或 name），與唯一兄弟工具 check_backend_health 有清楚區隔，功能定位無歧義。

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?

描述提供明確使用情境『當使用者想查詢、尋找採購單時使用』，並附具體範例（找已核准螢幕採購單最多 5 筆），足以引導代理正確選用。雖未明確說明何時不使用，但與兄弟工具的健康檢查用途無重疊，指引已足夠。

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