garbage_schedule

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the entire behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the read-only sense of 查詢. It does not say whether results are complete lists or truncated, whether filtering is exact-match or fuzzy, whether the data is static or updated, or how output is formatted.

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 with zero filler, and the covered cities are stated up front. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the tool's five filters and lack of annotations.

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?

Because the schema fully documents all parameters and no output schema exists, the description need only cover behavior and returns. It is adequate in scope but leaves open what a result entry contains (collection point, address, time) and whether results are filtered or paged, which matters for a schedule-query tool with five optional filters.

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 five parameters (city, time, keyword, weekday, district) are already explained inline and the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning such as accepted city-name spellings, weekday token formats, or how keyword and district interact.

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 pairs a specific verb (查詢) with a concrete resource (垃圾車定點收運時刻) and names the covered cities (新北市、臺北市、臺中市). The resource is clearly distinct from the other siblings, so no explicit sibling comparison is needed, but it does not rule out overlap with outage_schedule-style tools or state the bounded scope explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that a city is mandatory and what the optional filters are for, purely from the schema; the description never routes or excludes.

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