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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 10-result cap, the ordering rule (ongoing first, then nearest in time), and the timezone semantics of start_time/end_time (local datetimes, no offset designator). These are non-obvious traits an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by return behavior, id usage, timezone semantics, and the disambiguation boundary. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter search tool: purpose, result cap, ordering, timezone interpretation, and the boundary with content-search tools are all covered. An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully pre-explains result semantics without redundancy.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the schema says 'Event name to search for' while the description reveals the query also matches event code. That's a genuine extension of parameter semantics, though it stops short of describing matching behavior (exact vs substring, case sensitivity).

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?

States a specific verb+resource and scope ('events you have access to by event name or event code'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from content search: sessions, speakers, polls are not searchable here. An agent can tell it apart from read_agenda/read_event_content without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names what this tool does NOT cover ('This searches event names only') and routes to the alternative with concrete invocation details ('use read_agenda with action list_sessions and a query for session titles'). Also tells the agent the returned ids are for subsequent event-scoped calls.

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