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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns only live/scheduled public offers and specifies the output fields (title, booth, time window in minutes, remaining-count style numbers). It does not mention ordering, limits, or pagination, but it discloses the core return shape.

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 one compact sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core scope ('Live and scheduled public offers at an event') and then packs the essential output detail, earning every word.

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 one-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned and the event context. Minor omissions like sort order or result limits are not critical given the input schema fully documents the event identifier.

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 single parameter's accepted formats are already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 (public offers) and a clear time scope (live and scheduled), which distinguishes it from broader siblings like events_list and events_whats_on. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against a sibling, but the verb-plus-resource is still clear.

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: this tool lists offers tied to an event and requires an event identifier. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over events_booth_detail or events_whats_on, nor any 'when not to use' guidance.

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