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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: lost events are hidden from home stages and only returned when status=lost, plus the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). It does not describe pagination beyond the cursor, 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?

The purpose and filtering scope are front-loaded, and the special-case note about lost events is placed after the core description. Dense but every sentence adds information, with only mild run-on phrasing.

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 no output schema, it adequately covers what items contain (status, dates, guest count, contact, owner, event ID) and how to page/filter. Return-value detail is thin but sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 all seven parameters are already documented with descriptions and enum values. The description echoes the status values and filter dimensions but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Lists events from your account, including leads') and describes item contents. It is clearly distinguishable from perfect-venue_get_event (single event) and perfect-venue_get_events_report, and notes that item IDs feed the other tools.

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?

Rich guidance on filtering by status, date, venue and owner, including the non-obvious rule that omitting status returns everything except lost. It does not explicitly name the sibling to use for single-event retrieval or reports, so the when-vs-alternative routing is implied rather than stated.

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