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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the organizer-only permission model, a refusal that 'says nothing about the event', the requirement for a personal connector token, and that aggregates exclude person names/ids. It also discloses read-after-write consistency with the session-mutation tools.

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 content is dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but much of it is a single sprawling sentence that enumerates every returned field. Since an output schema already exists, that long enumeration is redundant and hurts scannability rather than adding value.

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?

Permission boundaries, auth requirement, side-effect profile, and data-privacy behavior are all covered, which is what an agent needs to call this safely. Return values are partly duplicated from the existing output schema, so the description is more than complete rather than under-specified.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema fully documents eventIdOrName. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema's own description of 'event id or the event name as the organizer spells it,' 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 and resource with scope: 'The organizer's own overview of their event, read only,' then enumerates what it contains (name, visibility, dates, agenda, booths, doors, visit counts, links). This clearly separates it from guest-facing siblings like events_overview or events_get, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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: it's for organizers, and 'After an agenda change through event_session_move... it shows the change' hints at a refresh-after-mutation context. However, there's no explicit statement of when to use this versus events_overview or events_get, so routing to the right sibling still requires inference.

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