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

Annotations already declare the mutation/non-idempotent/safe-write profile, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the side effect that it returns the upcoming schedule, and the limitation that it cannot send invitations. It does not cover edge behaviors such as duplicate handling, timezone assumptions, or required calendar setup, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, followed by the return behavior and then the exclusions. No filler and every clause carries routing or behavioral information.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description still covers purpose, routing, and key limits. Minor gaps remain around date/time semantics and what happens on duplicate or conflicting events.

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 60%, and the description only reinforces that a start time is needed ('with a start time') without adding format or semantics. The undocumented 'notes' and 'location' fields are left unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('put a new event on their Xenition calendar') and enumerates the concrete event types (meeting, call, deadline, reminder). It explicitly distinguishes itself from reschedule_event, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 the trigger condition ('when the user wants to put a new event...'), an explicit exclusion ('Do not use to change an existing event'), the named alternative (reschedule_event), and a hard capability limit (no invitations). This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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