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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the data sources, the default date window, and the shape of the returned items. It does not mention limits on result size or pagination, but the limit parameter's max of 30 hints at that.

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 sentences with no waste; the use cases are front-loaded and the default-window rule comes last where it acts as a fallback instruction. Every clause carries information.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't spell out return values, yet it summarizes them helpfully. Annotations cover safety and the source/default behavior is stated. Minor gap: query-matching semantics and result limits are left to structured fields.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description clarifies the date-range behavior (no dates => next 7 days) and implies free_only and query through its example phrasings. However it says nothing about the `when` enum values or the `limit` cap, leaving those entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (returns things to do) and resource (events in Gilbert, AZ), names the two underlying sources (Town of Gilbert calendar and Eventbrite), and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinct from siblings like gilbert_business_lookup or gilbert_council_watch.

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 concrete trigger phrasings ("this weekend", "today", "free events", specific dates) and states the default behavior when no dates are supplied (next 7 days). It does not state explicit exclusions, but the sibling tools are far enough apart in purpose that no alternative routing is needed.

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