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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the data is read-only, whether it requires authentication, whether results are paginated, or any other behavioral traits. The description only indicates it retrieves data, which is a minimal baseline for a read operation.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has two parameters (one required, one optional with a large enum) and no annotations or output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain the optional brand filter, the expected output format, or any usage caveats. For a calendar tool with a measurable scope, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to call it correctly.

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 50%: the month parameter has a description ('YYYY-MM'), but the brand parameter's enum values are self-explanatory without additional text. The tool description mentions '某個月' (a specific month) but adds no further semantics beyond what the schema provides for month, and doesn't mention the optional brand filter at all.

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 clearly states the core purpose: retrieving a monthly release schedule for gashapon and figures based on official release periods. It identifies the verb (取得/retrieve) and resource (發售表/release calendar), and the month parameter is explicitly mentioned. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like global_toy_calendar or official_toy_news, which could also provide release-related information.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description's mention of '某個月' (a specific month), suggesting it's for monthly queries. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like global_toy_calendar or official_toy_news, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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