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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the 12-month horizon, the published-only filter, and that each state's most common craft is included in the result.

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 core action, then scope, then the parameter constraint. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: a per-state count plus that state's most common craft. Filters, time window, and grouping are all covered, leaving nothing essential unspecified for a single-const-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single parameter whose schema is a const of 'state', so the schema already enforces the value. The description restates '`by` must be `state`', which is redundant with the const but confirms intent for an agent skimming the prose.

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+resource ('count upcoming events per state') and scopes it precisely with the 12-month window and published-only filter. The name/title and sibling count_events_by_craft make the grouping dimension unambiguous, so an agent can distinguish it from the craft variant.

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 implies usage through the scope ('upcoming published events in the next 12 months') but never states when to choose this over count_events_by_craft or other list_* tools. Usage is inferable from the name rather than explained.

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