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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description reinforces that while adding genuinely non-obvious behavior: that create_event parks drafts which surface here, that drafts are excluded from the archived list, that review_url requires sign-in, and that the read permission is needed. This is context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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 the core capability, and the parentheticals carry real information rather than filler. It is dense but every clause (drafts, archived behavior, review_url, permission) adds actionable detail; only a slight compression opportunity remains.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still enumerates key fields and covers the non-obvious draft/archived interaction, the review_url flow, and the permission requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's terse 'true for archived events instead of live ones' by adding that drafts are omitted from the archived view, which materially affects how the flag should be used.

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 ('Lists this organizer's own events') plus scope, ordering (newest first), and the exact payload returned (id, title, status, who's answered, leading date). The inclusion of drafts distinguishes it clearly from get_event and the other event tools in the sibling list.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance for the one parameter ('Pass archived:true for the archived list instead of the live one') and clarifies the draft edge case (drafts appear in the live list but not the archived one). It does not name sibling alternatives such as get_event or list_contacts, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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