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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is low. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: the set of event categories returned and the apiKey authorization requirement, which annotations do not express. It omits default time-window behavior, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 with the resource and content scope front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, returned content, and auth. The only gap is unspecified default date-range behavior when startDate/endDate are omitted.

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%, so all three parameters (farmId, startDate, endDate) are already documented with types and format hints. The description only restates that farmId is required and adds nothing about the date filter syntax, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('calendar events') and enumerates the event types covered (hatches, local events, rentals, task due dates), which distinguishes it from get_tasks and get_hatches. It does not explicitly route to create_calendar_event/delete_calendar_event, but the read/write split is obvious from the names.

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?

Usage is implied by the content-type list and the farmId/apiKey prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., get_tasks for pure task lists) and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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