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. It discloses only one scope detail — that TBA-window titles are included alongside dated ones — but says nothing about permissions, pagination, data source, freshness, or return shape for what is presumably 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?

It is a single short sentence, which is appropriately sized for this simple tool. The bracketed promotional tag at the start, however, spends the most prominent position on content that does not help an agent decide to call the tool.

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?

This is a low-complexity read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the bar is low — but with zero annotations the description should at least disambiguate it from the four or five other release-calendar/countdown siblings and hint at the returned fields. It does neither.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'month' parameter is self-documenting as YYYY-MM. The phrase '依月份' corroborates the monthly grouping but adds no syntax, default, or behavior detail (e.g., what happens when month is omitted). Baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 core statement — a game release calendar organized by month, including titles that only have a vague announced window — is understandable. However, the leading bracketed tag '［NEW遊戲發售預告片揪團交換］' is marketing noise that obscures rather than clarifies purpose, and no verb or explicit distinction from siblings like games__release_countdown or games__delay_history is given.

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?

The description never states when to use this tool versus the many nearby calendar/countdown siblings (games__release_countdown, games__delay_history, screen__release_calendar, toys__release_calendar). It implies a browsing use case at best, with no prerequisites or exclusions.

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