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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: soonest-first ordering, page size up to 100, cursor handoff via next_cursor, and the Cotlet API key auth requirement.

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-loads what the tool returns, then filtering, then pagination, then auth. Every sentence carries information, though the density makes it slightly long for a list endpoint.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming returned fields, ordering, page size, cursor mechanics, and auth. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and continue pagination.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema doesn't: it explains the cursor round-trip ('pass next_cursor back as cursor') and that pages cap at 100, tying the next_cursor concept the schema never names to the cursor parameter.

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 (Lists) and resource (events of your MIO account), and even enumerates the returned fields (state, dates, venue, total allocation). An agent can distinguish this from dice_get_event or dice_create_event without opening any 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 clear usage context: filter by state or start date, and use the returned event_id in other tools. It never names a sibling alternative directly (e.g. dice_get_event for a single event), so it falls short of explicit when-not routing, but the guidance is concrete.

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