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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add scope. It does: 'published' discloses an implicit visibility filter not represented in the schema, and 'soonest first' fixes the default ordering. It stops short of saying what happens to events beyond the limit, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 with zero filler, and the discriminating details (published, upcoming, sort order) are packed in front. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what is listed, which subset (published/upcoming), and in what order. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 the single parameter's description already documents default 10 and max 20, so the description adds nothing beyond it. The baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('List') plus a tightly scoped resource ('published upcoming Artbook Society events') with an explicit sort order ('soonest first'). No sibling overlaps (artist/editor/product tools), so no explicit differentiation is required, but the definition also doesn't need to state that.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'upcoming' and 'published' signal the intent, so an agent can infer this is the browse-the-calendar tool. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of past events retrieval, and no named alternative, though the siblings are unrelated enough that ambiguity risk is low.

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