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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' mostly restates structured data. The description does add useful behavioral context: the default date window and that the calendar must be 'connected' (external, consistent with openWorldHint). It says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no connection exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and scoped by the window, followed by the handoff and the required identifier. No filler, though 'Read-only' is redundant against the annotations.

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 enumerating return fields is a bonus rather than a necessity. However, for a tool with six optional parameters and nested connectionId, the description omits how to scope to a specific company/connection and any result-limit behavior, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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?

With six parameters and only 17% schema description coverage, the description should carry more weight. It clarifies the from/to window (with a default) and the requirement to 'pass your agent_name', but says nothing about companyId, connectionId, or maxResults, leaving three parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb (Lists) plus resource (events on the connected Luma calendar) and an enumeration of the returned fields (title, start, end, location, link, host). It also names the sibling tool it hands off to, so the agent can distinguish it from connection_list_luma_guests without opening either schema.

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?

States the default window ('the last six months onward') and explicitly routes the agent to connection_list_luma_guests when the goal is attendees. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, but the primary alternative is named with its selection condition.

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