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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly says 'Public read,' adding useful information about authentication requirements and side effects. It also clarifies what the returned data represents. Since annotations already cover safety, the description adds meaningful but not exhaustive behavioral context.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: it front-loads the output contents, adds a practical usage note, and closes with access semantics. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains both what the tool returns and when to use it. The enumeration of link types compensates for the absence of an output schema, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 fully documents the only parameter, event_slug, with a description saying 'Slug of the event.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the tool is event-specific, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: returning public promotion links for an event, and enumerates the specific link types (shareable page, calendar file, Open Graph image, plain-text digest). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like event_get or event_schedule, which serve different event-related purposes.

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 gives a concrete use case: drafting an announcement, with guidance on where to place the share URL and the .ics file. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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