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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description supplements this with pagination details (after_id), the behavior of include_scores ('intended for small result sets'), and the exact fields returned. This goes beyond the annotations in a meaningful way.

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?

Two sentences carry a wealth of information without filler. It starts with the core action, then systematically covers filters, return fields, and alternatives, all while remaining scannable and direct.

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 tool with 13 optional parameters and a well-documented schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: purpose, filtering, pagination, return shape, performance notes, and pointer to sibling tools. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the pagination flow (after_id from next_after_id) and the performance caveat for include_scores, which isn't evident from the schema alone.

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 opens with 'List events (schedules and live scores)', a clear verb+resource statement, and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by mentioning pagination via after_id and structured filters. It also names get_event and query_events as alternatives, making its own scope evident.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'use get_event for one event's full detail, or query_events for free-text/natural-language filters instead of structured params'. It also tells agents to resolve team IDs via list_teams/get_team, covering when not to use this tool.

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