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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup via '查' but does not explicitly state read-only safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It mainly enumerates returned fields rather than behavioral traits.

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 compact sentence front-loads the core action and then lists returned data and parameter notes without filler. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 simple single-game lookup with no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned data fields and parameter language support. However, it omits guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like lookup_any_game or delay_history, and it does not disclose any behavioral traits since annotations are absent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single required parameter q, the description compensates by stating that both Chinese and English names are accepted and giving examples (GTA VI, 俠盜獵車手VI). This adds clear semantic guidance for the parameter beyond the bare schema type.

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 verb and resource (查單一遊戲) and enumerates the data returned, which helps distinguish it from list_games. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from lookup_any_game or delay_history, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternatives among siblings (lookup_any_game, list_games). The only usage hint is that Chinese or English names are accepted, which is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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