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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing provenance (PS Store listing, local midnight Nov 19 2026) and two important caveats — Rockstar has no published unlock table and Xbox timing is unconfirmed. That prevents an agent from over-claiming certainty, which is behavioral context that exists nowhere in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then source, then return shape, then caveats — a sensible ordering with no filler. It runs slightly long by restating return contents that an output schema already defines.

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 one-parameter lookup with a full output schema, the definition covers trigger, data source, temporal basis and known uncertainty. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or caveat its answer is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents that country accepts names, ISO codes or aliases with examples (India, UK, US, BR). The description adds only 'given country', so it neither compensates for nor exceeds the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource ('asks what time GTA 6 unlocks in a given country') and grounds it in a named data source, the PlayStation Store listing. An agent can distinguish this from get_launch_countdown, get_price and get_facts without opening any schema.

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?

'Use this when someone asks what time GTA 6 unlocks in a given country' gives an explicit trigger condition scoped by both subject and geography. The country-scoped framing implicitly routes general launch questions to the countdown sibling.

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