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 discloses returned fields (announcement date, release date, status) and that filtering is possible, but omits pagination, result limits, explicit read-only assurance, and auth/rate-limit behavior. Minimum viable but with gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with semicolons, covering scope, fields, and filters without filler. Appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage. The description gives scope and some returned fields, but is incomplete for a 5-parameter list tool lacking return format, pagination, and parameter details.

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 0% for 5 parameters. The description mentions platform, status, and date filters, but leaves 'upcoming' undocumented and does not specify date formats or status enum meanings. It only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific verb '列出' (list) and resource '重點遊戲' with scope (2026–2027) and platforms. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings such as release_calendar or lookup_any_game, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

It says the list can be filtered by platform, status, and date, implying use for filtered game listings. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_game or release_calendar, and no exclusions.

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