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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: broadcast and chat links are redacted for non-admins/non-participants. It also communicates ordering and status semantics (past/now/future), which helps the agent anticipate role-dependent output.

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 focused sentences front-load the core resource and then add the access-control caveat. Every clause serves a purpose: content, item fields, ordering, statuses, and role-dependent link visibility.

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 a read-only list tool with one required parameter, the description covers what is returned, the item fields, ordering/statuses, and the role-based blanking behavior. The optional pagination parameters are already fully described in the schema, and no output schema exists to explain further.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage: event_slug, page, and page_size are each documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 resource ('the event's timeline') and the exact content returned: an ordered list of stages/activities with title, location, time window, and status. This clearly differentiates event_schedule from siblings like event_get and event_team_stages by naming the schedule artifact and participant-facing framing.

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 when to use the tool ('need the event's timeline/schedule') and clarifies the participant-facing scope, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like event_get and event_team_stages are not mentioned, so routing decisions are left to inference.

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