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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by emphasizing it is a partial read (only one field of a larger configuration model) that must not be treated as a full config fetch. It does not cover auth/permission needs or rate limits, but those are minor against the annotation coverage.

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 core scope constraint in the first clause, followed by domain content and then sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the field's contents and the disambiguation against CoopEvent and Season, while annotations carry the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to select and call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100% for the single title_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about parameter format or scoping beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb and resource ("GET ONLY the 'TimedEvent' field of TitlePublicConfigurationModel") and then enumerates the field's domain content (event IDs, schedules, objectives, rewards). It explicitly names what it is not — CoopEvent and Season — so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 routing rules: "For multi-player team events use CoopEvent; for long-form battle-pass-style progression use Season." Both alternatives and the conditions selecting them are given, and the example list (daily challenges, weekly missions, holiday events, login streaks) further anchors when this tool applies.

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