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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the data provenance (Wikidata public data), which is genuinely useful since it implies the coverage and freshness limitations of the result. However, it says nothing about return shape, latency, or query-matching behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One compact sentence with the database framing front-loaded and the data source and returned fields following. No padding; every clause adds information.

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-param lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and where the data comes from. It stops short of documenting the one parameter's expected input, which is the main missing piece.

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 single parameter is the cryptic 'q' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only loosely implies that 'q' is the event query ('查任何運動賽事'), but gives no format guidance (Chinese vs English name, exact vs fuzzy, ID vs free text), which is a real gap for a lookup tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('查任何運動賽事') and enumerates the returned fields (date, location, category, champion, official website) plus the data source (Wikidata). The '任何' (any) qualifier hints at broad scope versus the more targeted siblings like get_sports_event, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 get_sports_event, list_sports_events, sports__event_countdown or sports__whats_on. The 'any event' phrasing implies a general-purpose lookup, but no condition or exclusion is given to route the agent.

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