outage_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and the exclusion of unplanned outages is a real behavioral disclosure. However, it says nothing about the data source or refresh timing (utility company feeds?), ordering of results, or pagination, and nothing about the 31-day cap on the query window. Useful but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose first and the caveat second, then an English restatement that costs little. Nothing is padded and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description establishes scope but does not describe what a returned notice contains (area, date range, reason, status) or whether results are empty when no planned work exists. An agent can call it correctly but cannot anticipate the response shape.

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% and every parameter, including the start_date/end_date defaults and the 31-day cap, is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about city format, keyword matching behavior, or how type interacts with the other filters, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb (查詢) and resource (計畫性停水、停電公告), so an agent immediately knows this returns scheduled water and power outage notices. It does not contrast with any sibling by name, but the domain is distinct enough from the invoice and stock tools that no confusion arises; garbage_schedule is the nearest relative and is separated by the utility type.

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?

It gives a clear exclusion: emergency repairs, accidents, and typhoon-caused outages are not announced in advance, so this tool will not surface them. That is a genuinely useful when-not-to-use signal. No alternative tool is named, but none exists among the siblings for that content.

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