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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond that: the required `content:read` scope and a prompt-injection caution that free text arrives in untrusted_fields and must never be treated as instructions — genuinely useful context for a read tool that returns user-authored content.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the auth/safety notes following. Every clause carries information an agent would not get from the name or annotations alone.

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 zero-parameter read tool the auth scope and untrusted-content warning cover the main risks. With no output schema, though, the description says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what a 'live event' record contains beyond the untrusted_fields hint, leaving the return shape underspecified.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no argument semantics to clarify, and nothing in the description misrepresents the (empty) input contract.

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 ('List my live events'), and the possessive 'my' scopes it to the caller's own events, distinguishing it from the public/other live-event tools in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_live_event or preview_live_event, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implied by the name and by the 'my' scope, which is enough for an agent to know this is the bulk-retrieval tool for its own events. However, it never names the alternative when a single event is wanted (get_live_event) and gives no guidance on paging, ordering, or whether archived/cancelled events are included.

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