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 says nothing about whether the month argument is optional, what the default range is when omitted (required params = 0), or how results are ordered/formatted. It implies a read-only calendar lookup but never states that, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 that leads with the action and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of missing information rather than disciplined compression.

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 tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an optional parameter, the description should at least clarify default behavior when month is omitted and the nature of the returned date list. Instead it leaves the agent guessing on both, and offers no routing against five related sibling tools.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents its YYYY-MM format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the conceptual link that month scopes the listing, with no extra format or edge-case detail.

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 gives a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (各賽事的開幕、決賽與關鍵日期 – each event's opening, finals and key dates) scoped by month, so the agent knows what comes back. However, it never distinguishes this calendar view from siblings like list_sports_events or whats_on, which sound like overlapping ways to enumerate events.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any of the six sibling tools. The agent is left to guess whether this or list_sports_events/whats_on is the right call for a given question.

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