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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the covered scope (2026–2028, Taiwan-focused) and the fields returned (date, location, status, Taiwan broadcast), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, result limits, pagination, or date-format expectations for the filters.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the database identity and the verb, then the scope, return fields, and filters. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical league list is long.

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 list tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 20% param coverage, the description covers purpose, temporal scope, return fields and filter axes. It still leaves gaps an agent would want: date format for from/to, result limits, and how it differs from sports_calendar/whats_on.

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 only 20% (just the 'taiwan' param), so the description must compensate. It names the three filter dimensions (sport/status/date), which maps loosely onto sport, status and from/to, but adds no format or syntax detail for from/to and no clarification for the enum values.

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 (列出/list) and resource (運動賽事/sports events) and pins down the scope: Taiwan-focused, 2026–2028, with named leagues (CPBL, MLB, NBA, TPBL, Asian Games, Premier12, Olympics). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as sports__sports_calendar or sports__whats_on.

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?

Usage is only implied: the closing clause '可依項目、狀態、日期篩選' tells the agent the tool supports filtering by sport, status and date, which hints at when it is useful. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives among the many sports__ siblings.

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