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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the auth requirement, a concrete rate limit (max 10/day), and the non-obvious visibility behaviour (unlisted: reachable by URL but absent from catalogue and sitemap). The inclusion semantics of the date range is also stated explicitly, which materially affects behaviour.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then auth/rate constraints and visibility, then date semantics. Every sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description omits the most consequential return detail: what the caller receives (presumably the new page's URL or an identifier) and whether the page is immediately live. Auth, limits and visibility are covered, but an agent cannot predict the response shape from this text and has no output schema to fall back on.

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 60%: start_date, end_date and language are documented in the schema, while name (with min/max length) and description have no schema text. The description only reinforces the inclusive-day semantics of the dates and adds nothing about name or description content, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap; baseline 3 fits.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a public progress page for an event') and immediately qualifies the kind of resource produced. None of the siblings (get_event, search_events, upcoming_events, register_agent) perform creation, so an agent can route here unambiguously; the visibility model (URL-reachable but not in catalogue/sitemap) further pins down what is created.

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?

It gives real preconditions for using the tool (API key with a confirmed contact e-mail, 10 per day cap), which is useful scoping. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or what not to use it for (e.g. no guidance on retrieving or updating an event after creation), so usage is only implied.

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