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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and scope. The description adds useful behavioral details: it includes consensus lines where posted and costs 2 credits. These go beyond the annotations but are modest. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently conveys the key usage modes, cost, and additional content. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with separate clauses.

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?

Given the read-only nature, the presence of an output schema, and complete parameter descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers cost, usage modes, and inclusions. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of pagination or result ordering, but these are typically handled by the output schema.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, mentioning the default days value (also in schema) and clarifying that days applies to unplayed games while week returns all games. This is adequate but not extra value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to see upcoming unplayed games or a specific week's schedule. It uses a specific verb ('see') and resource ('schedule'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_games, which might also list games, so it loses one point.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining the two modes (next N days or a specific week) and the default of 7 days. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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