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 the return payload (date, venue, organizer, key dates, national-team info, broadcast platforms/sources) and states that lookups are read-only in nature, but says nothing about failure behavior, matching strategy, or auth requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence: verb+scope first, then the returned fields, then the input flexibility. No redundant or filler text.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information and it adequately enumerates what comes back, plus accepted input forms. It lacks only disambiguation against the near-duplicate sibling lookup_any_sports_event.

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 coverage is 0% and the lone parameter 'q' is completely undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does so by declaring that Chinese or English names are both accepted and giving concrete examples (世界12強, 台灣大賽, TPBL, LA28), which materially shapes how an agent fills the argument.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (查單一賽事 = look up a single event) and enumerates the returned content areas (date, venue, organizer, key dates, Chinese Taipei info, Taiwan broadcast platforms). This clearly separates it from the plural sibling list_sports_events, though it gives no hint at how it differs from lookup_any_sports_event or taiwan_broadcast.

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?

The word 單一 ('single') implies the tool is for one specific event rather than a listing, which is a usable usage signal, but no when-to-use condition or alternative tool is ever named despite six siblings covering overlapping territory.

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