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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully adds that results are scoped to Germany and limited to upcoming events, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about sorting, pagination behavior beyond the limit param, or result freshness.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope followed by the filter list. The closing English sentence ('Finds upcoming founder events in Germany.') is largely a restatement of the German opening, which is mild waste but not harmful.

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?

For an eight-parameter, zero-required, fully-schema-documented read-only search with no output schema, the description covers geography, temporal scope and event taxonomy adequately. An agent could call it correctly, though the absence of any note on result ordering or what a returned event contains leaves a small gap.

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% and the schema itself carries the enum values, the Bundesland code list, the date format and the default for limit/from_date, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description echoes five of the eight dimensions (region, art, format, dates, query) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what is already documented, and never mentions free_only or limit.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (upcoming founder events in Germany) and enumerates the concrete event categories (IHK/HWK-Gründerabende, Netzwerk-Treffen, Konferenzen, Hackathons, Build-Sessions, Webinare), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is searched. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearest sibling list_founder_deadlines, which is a plausible confusion point.

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 implies usage by listing the filterable dimensions (Bundesland, Art, Format, Zeitraum, Stichwort), which tells the agent what it can narrow by. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as list_founder_deadlines or read_founder_guide.

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