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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose pagination, the plan-gated date window, and that coins/categories/date filters compose with AND, which is genuine behavioral context. It stops short of any auth/permission model beyond 'caller's plan', rate limits, or error behavior (the 403s are only in the schema).

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 the operation and scope. Slight redundancy: 'Default sort is date asc (soonest first)' duplicates what the sortBy schema entry already says.

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 9-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus a very rich schema covers what an agent needs to call it. The absence of return-shape or pagination-cursor explanation is acceptable given the schema is exhaustive, though some error-condition context is left entirely to the schema.

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%, and the schema already documents defaults, tier clamps, the impactMin/categories 403 gating, and sort behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the cross-parameter AND composition rule and restates the default sort, adding modest value beyond the per-parameter docs.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns a paginated list of upcoming and historical events') with the scope qualified by plan tier. However, it never distinguishes this tool from sibling listing/read tools such as get_event or list_event_cancellations, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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: an agent can infer this is the bulk-listing tool and that filters compose with AND, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_event or list_event_cancellations, nor when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named.

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