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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the three possible statuses, that the listing URL appears only once live, and that no contact details are returned.

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, zero waste. The status enumeration is front-loaded and the id-provenance constraint follows immediately; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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-value burden and does so fully: statuses, the conditional listing URL, and the explicit absence of contact details. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 100% and the id format is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description goes one step further by stating the provenance of the value — the id returned by submit_event — which the schema does not convey.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Review status of an event') with the exact state machine spelled out: pending_review, approved (with listing URL), rejected. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_event by naming it as the source of the submission.

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?

'Takes the id submit_event returned' gives a clear triggering context: use this after submitting via submit_event or the website form. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for other lookup needs (e.g. get_events), but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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