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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (日期、地點、狀態、台灣轉播) and that filtering is supported, which goes beyond a bare statement of purpose. But it omits operational traits an agent would want: whether results are paginated, the default date range when no filter is given, and whether the broadcast info is always present or conditional.

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 that front-loads the resource, scope, and coverage before the filter clause. Nothing is wasted, though the mid-sentence enumeration of leagues and return fields makes it slightly long compared to the core filtering message.

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?

Given five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonable work by stating the returned fields and the available filters. It still leaves gaps around date parameter format, default scope, result limits, and how this differs from the several sibling calendar/lookup tools, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 flag), so the description needs to compensate. It mentions filtering by 項目/狀態/日期, which maps onto sport, status, and from/to, but adds no format detail for from/to (date syntax, timezone, inclusivity) and never clarifies that taiwan is a boolean scope filter. Partial compensation only.

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) and resource (運動賽事), narrowed by geography and time window (台灣關注的 2026–2028), and enumerates the covered leagues (中職、MLB、NBA、TPBL, 亞運, 12強, 奧運). It also names the return fields, making the tool easy to identify. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as get_sports_event or lookup_any_sports_event, which is the only thing keeping this from a 5.

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?

It says the results can be filtered by 項目、狀態、日期, which implies a browse/list use case rather than a single-event lookup. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like whats_on, sports_calendar, or get_sports_event, nor does it say when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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