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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context about the filtered scope (upcoming scheduled, excluding on-demand webinars), which is not conveyed by annotations. This adds value beyond structured fields.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('List upcoming scheduled legal trainings and events') and includes a precise exclusion. No redundant or filler wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, optional filters (domain, language, limit, cursor) are not explained anywhere, and pagination via cursor is implicit but not mentioned. For a list with four optional parameters, this is a notable gap, though the core scope is clear.

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 0% — the description does not mention any parameter (limit, cursor, domain, language) at all. The parameters are not fully self-explanatory (e.g., domain values be/lu, language filters), and with zero coverage the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It fails to compensate.

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 verb (list) and resource (upcoming scheduled legal trainings and events on LexGO). It adds a specific scope (upcoming scheduled) and an exclusion (on-demand webinars), which distinguishes it from get_event and other list tools like list_functions or search_jobs.

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 gives clear contextual guidance (what events are included, what is excluded), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_event or search_jobs. The exclusion of on-demand webinars is a useful usage hint, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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