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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not whether results are read-only, their format, pagination, or coverage limits. '附來源' (with sources) hints at citations but is not enough for a query tool with zero annotation support.

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 label front-loaded and examples (亞運、中職) that anchor scope. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves purpose underspecified.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the domain adequately, but given the absence of any structured behavioral or parameter data it should say more about what the query accepts and returns.

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 'q' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no clue about what to query (event name, team, sport, platform?). The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource (TV/online broadcast platforms for Taiwan sports events such as the Asian Games and CPBL) and notes it includes sources, but supplies no verb to indicate what the tool actually does — look up, search, or list. It is distinguishable in topic from siblings like sports__get_sports_event, but an agent cannot tell the operation from the text alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as sports__list_sports_events, sports__get_sports_event, or sports__whats_on. The only implied usage is that it concerns broadcast information.

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