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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — each entry ships with the original announcement link — but says nothing about read-only nature, result volume, time window, or ordering. Adequate but thin for a no-annotation tool.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the bracketed domain label and then the filter criterion. No filler, no redundancy.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description still conveys what is returned (schedule changes plus their announcement source). Enough to call it correctly, though the absence of any time-range or ordering statement leaves a small gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific scope: games in the release-date/trailer database that had an official schedule change (delayed or moved up). A clear verb+resource combination that an agent can distinguish from games__release_calendar or games__get_game, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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 is only implied — the agent can infer it should call this when it wants to know which titles slipped or advanced. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the near-identical screen__schedule_changes sibling, leaving routing to inference.

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