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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantive context beyond them: a connect/auth prerequisite, the 'newest first' ordering, an explicit privacy guarantee ('Counts only, never who bought or came'), and a failure message when Events is not open on the account.

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?

Front-loaded with audience and prerequisite, then a compact field list with a privacy caveat and a failure case. Dense but not padded; the parenthetical '(asks them to connect)' is slightly awkward but earns its place by flagging the auth flow.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the ordering, plus saying what happens when Events is unavailable. The one real gap is input behavior — how status filtering and limit interact with the 'newest first' ordering is left unstated.

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 0% and the description does not compensate: neither the `limit` cap nor the `status` filter is explained. 'status (draft, on_sale, ended, cancelled)' appears only as a returned field, so an agent cannot tell from the description that a status enum exists as a filter input, and 'newest first' only indirectly implies what limit does.

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 ('the connected creator's ticketed events') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: title, dates, status, public link, tickets sold, ticket sales, check-ins. No sibling tool covers events, so it is trivially distinguishable from the invoice/quote/deal/page tools listed.

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?

Explicitly scopes the audience and prerequisite — 'Creators only, on their own Piku account (asks them to connect)' — and covers the degraded case when Events is not open on the account. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over any alternative or which statuses to request, but no competing events tool exists.

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