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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it discloses licensing uncertainty, non-publication status, timezone handling (local wall-clock with UTC offset, never converted), and the notable behavior of returning cancelled events rather than hiding them. This is rich, honest 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?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence carries meaningful information: preview status, data source, licensing, timezone behavior, and cancelled-event handling. It is front-loaded with the most important caveat (FOUNDER PREVIEW). Slightly verbose but each sentence earns its place.

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 calendar tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data it reads, how times are formatted, how cancellations are handled, and the legal/publication status. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and interpret results.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context about the data source and time handling but doesn't add meaning to the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (Long Beach public events calendar), a specific verb (read), and enumerates the event categories covered. It also distinguishes itself from scraped feeds by stating it reads from the publisher's own JSON feed, which helps separate it from sibling event tools.

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 description clearly states this is a founder preview, not a published feed, and explains when it should be used (for evaluating upcoming City of Long Beach events). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the preview status and data-source distinction provide clear context for selection.

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