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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (events with a count of dated deals under each) and the scope, which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size for a full-archive listing.

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 tight sentences: the resource and payload are front-loaded, and the archive-scope caveat follows immediately. No filler or restated metadata.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly spends words describing the return value (events plus deal counts) and the archive scope it covers. What is missing is minor operational detail like ordering or pagination for a full-archive result set.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ('List') and resource ('seasonal prop firm events and holidays') and adds the useful qualifier that it is the full archive rather than a 2-month window. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not name the singular sibling get_event as the contrasting alternative, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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 'full archive, not limited to the 2-month window' clause implies when this is preferable to a windowed listing, but no alternative tool (e.g., get_event or latest_deals) is named and no when-not condition is stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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