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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is externally supplied. The description adds the active-school scoping and optional date-range filtering, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or how 'upcoming' is bounded. This is useful context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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, action-first phrasing, and the optional filter details are packed into a single clear clause. There is no filler or redundant explanation beyond the brief read-only note, which remains useful if the description is read standalone.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the target, scope, filter options, and safety profile. An agent can correctly decide whether to call it and construct a valid request without missing critical information.

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 100% and each parameter already documents the YYYY-MM-DD format. The description adds that start_date and end_date form an optional date range, but this is largely inferable from the parameter names and the optionality is already present in the schema. The added semantic value is moderate.

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 concrete action ('Returns upcoming events') and a precise scope ('user's active school'), distinguishing it from sibling tools about orders, menus, and wallet data. It also contrasts with register_event, which is an event write operation rather than a read.

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?

The context is clear: use this to fetch upcoming events for the active school, with optional start/end date filtering. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for other event-related operations or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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