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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond the schema: 'upcoming cards on top, then the history' discloses a special ordering behavior that the schema's order parameter does not fully convey. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences pack the core purpose, ordering behavior, and the crucial reference to list_events. There is zero fluff or redundant restatement; the most distinctive features are front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a scoped read-only list tool given the schema and annotations. It mentions the custom ordering, points to list_events for filters and response shape, and the schema documents all parameters well. There is no output schema, but the reference to list_events (whose schema is presumably accessible) fills that gap. Minor ambiguities like the exact meaning of 'covered' and the interplay between ordering and the 'order' parameter prevent a perfect score.

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 86% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely points to list_events for shared filter definitions. It does not explain limit or pagination beyond what the schema's cursor description says, but the schema mostly carries the load.

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 states a specific action—listing every covered event at one venue—and distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling list_events by explicitly scoping to a single venue. The phrase 'Same filters and row shape as list_events' further clarifies what kind of tool this is and how it relates to the sibling.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear: use it for events at one venue. It references list_events for shared filters and output shape, which implies when to use this versus the broader list_events, but it does not explicitly state the exclusion condition ('use list_events when you need events across venues'). This is clear context without an explicit when-not.

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