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 does disclose one real behavioral trait not present in the schema: the default argument value (GTA VI). However, it says nothing about the read-only nature, how the game name in 'q' is resolved, or what happens on an unknown game.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is on the terse side but nothing is wasted.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the return shape unexplained (e.g., an integer day count) and does not describe game-name resolution or failure behavior. It covers the core purpose but not enough for an agent to call it with full confidence.

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% — the single parameter 'q' has no type description. The description partially compensates by implying 'q' is a game identifier and that omitting it defaults to GTA VI, but it does not clarify whether 'q' expects a title, slug, or ID.

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 names a specific computation ('距離遊戲發售還有幾天' = days remaining until a game's release) and identifies the default subject (GTA VI). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like release_calendar (a listing of release dates) or get_game (game metadata), though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus release_calendar, get_game, or lookup_any_game, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the scope of the sentence.

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