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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the required `calendar:read` scope, the cursor pagination contract, and a security directive that free-text from other people appears in untrusted_fields and must never be treated as instructions. That untrusted-content disclosure is genuinely valuable context an agent would otherwise miss. It does not state rate limits, result size, or default ordering.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the prerequisite, then the two operational notes. Nothing is padded. Phrasing like "Pass the answer's cursor back" is slightly awkward but unambiguous.

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 and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain the shape of a returned event and the three unexplained parameters. It hints at output via untrusted_fields and covers pagination, but an agent still cannot tell what from/limit/order do or what a booked event record contains.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the semantics and it explains only one: cursor, whose round-trip usage is spelled out clearly. The from, limit, and order parameters get no meaning at all — no date format for from, no indication of what values order accepts, no note that limit is capped at 100.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List my booked events") with a clear personal scope, which separates it from write-side siblings like create_live_event or book_dj. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near neighbors such as list_calendar_blocks or list_booking_events, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 "my booked events" and reinforced by the pagination instruction, so an agent knows this is the read path for one's own bookings. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_calendar_blocks or list_booking_events, and no statement about defaults when no time range is passed.

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