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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that only host-marked public events appear, host identity is omitted, and the look-ahead window is capped at 30 days. These are meaningful constraints an agent needs to know and are not present in the annotations.

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 compact, with four short sentences, each conveying a distinct behavioral fact. It front-loads the core purpose ('Public events, soonest first') and avoids filler or redundant wording.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and 7 optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: ordering, visibility, host privacy, and time window. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not elaborate on any parameter, providing no additional semantic value beyond the schema's own descriptions. This warrants the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool lists public events in chronological order ('Public events, soonest first'), which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'whats_happening', which may also relate to events, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It implies that you use it when you need public events, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives like 'whats_happening' or conditions favoring one over the other.

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