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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine domain meaning by defining which event types are returned. It says nothing about ordering, page-traversal behavior, or what a caller sees when the 92-day window is exceeded — all of which the schema mentions only as constraints, not behavior.

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 the verb and scope first and the event types in parentheses; no filler, no restatement of the title.

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 read-only paged list tool with no output schema, the description identifies the resource and event types but leaves the return shape, ordering, and pagination contract unstated. An agent can invoke it, but must probe to learn what an event record looks like or how results are ordered.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed defaults and the 92-day cap for 'to', plus page-size and cursor semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only frames from/to as 'between two dates' and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it.

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 ('Read the household's meal events') and enumerates what counts as a meal event (guests, eating out, packed lunches), so an agent knows the payload. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_calendar_events, get_day, or get_week_plan, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the ~50 siblings, several of which (get_calendar_events, get_day, get_week_plan) plausibly overlap. Usage can only be inferred from the phrase 'between two dates'.

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