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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait — each entry includes the source announcement link, i.e. the data is sourced/verifiable — but it says nothing about scope (which games/region), ordering, completeness, or whether the list is a full history.

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?

The substantive sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the bracketed prefix is dead weight at the very start and reads as a copy-paste artifact from an unrelated tool, costing the reader attention before the real content arrives.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema listing tool the description is roughly sufficient: it says what is returned and that announcement links accompany each change. It still omits the scope of coverage and ordering, which an agent would need to interpret the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4.

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 core clause — games with official schedule changes (delays or advances), each change carrying the original announcement link — names a specific resource and its payload. However, the leading bracket tag ［NEW遊戲發售預告片揪團交換］ describes a trailer/trade activity that has nothing to do with release-date changes, muddying what the tool actually does, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like games__release_calendar or games__release_countdown.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the adjacent release-calendar, countdown, or hype-ranking tools. The agent is left to infer that this is for retroactively tracking schedule changes rather than upcoming dates.

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