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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results include sources (附來源) and gives example event categories. It says nothing about coverage limits, data freshness, whether results are region-restricted, or how the broadcast lookup behaves when no match exists.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded with the clarifying examples and source note trailing. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than economy.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description is the only source of information, yet it omits the query semantics, result shape beyond 'platforms with sources', and any behavioural caveats. For a tool that must disambiguate itself from six siblings, this is not sufficient.

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 0% and the single query parameter q is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The agent cannot tell whether q expects an event name, a sport, a league, or a date, leaving the only input effectively unexplained.

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 resource (Taiwan TV/internet broadcast platforms for events like the Asian Games and CPBL) and adds a scope note (附來源). However it is a bare noun phrase with no action verb, so the agent must infer whether it queries, resolves, or lists broadcasters, and it never contrasts itself with generic siblings like get_sports_event or whats_on.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent receives zero help deciding between this and the six sibling event tools, despite clear overlap in the sports-event domain.

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