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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only, spends nothing' and 'Requires api_key', disclosing the safety profile and a prerequisite — meaningful behavioral context. It doesn't cover error conditions or the empty-boards case, a minor gap for a simple read tool, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded, with usage routing after. However, the trailing Vietnamese sentence ('Danh sách nhiệm vụ ngày/tuần kèm tiến độ + phần thưởng') redundantly restates the English content, adding length without value for an English-consuming agent — keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears the burden of explaining return content, which it does thoroughly (enumerating quest key, title, reward, progress, complete, claimed). Combined with the api_key prerequisite and sibling routing, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing for a 2-param list tool.

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 schema already documents both params (lang: language for titles, api_key: shop account API key). The description adds only 'Requires api_key' reinforcement and a Vietnamese phrase implying language handling, which is at the baseline for full schema coverage — no substantial new meaning over the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the daily & weekly quest board') with detailed itemization of what each entry returns (quest key, title, reward, current/target progress, completion, claimed status). This clearly distinguishes it from gamefi_status (combined summary) and claim_quest (a mutation action on a single quest).

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE ('the user wants to see quests or you need a quest_key'), AFTERWARDS routing ('call claim_quest on any quest that is complete but not yet claimed'), and PREFER INSTEAD alternative ('gamefi_status for a combined rewards summary'). This is textbook usage guidance that removes all ambiguity about when to pick this tool versus its siblings.

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