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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds real value: the auth requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'), the sort order, and the composition of returned items (guests, producers, audience with roles). Pagination behavior around the cursor is left unmentioned, keeping it just under full marks.

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 the resource and scope, then adds ordering, contents, chaining, and auth in compact sentences. Slightly dense with four focus shifts, but no wasted 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the returned item composition, ordering, and auth needs. The only gap is pagination semantics for the cursor, which are covered in the schema, so it is nearly complete.

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 to/from/cursor/studio_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or defaults beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (scheduled sessions from the studio Planner) plus ordering and contents, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling list/cancel/update tools at a glance. The scope 'scheduled sessions in start order, soonest first' is precise.

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?

It names downstream siblings (update_session, invite_guest, cancel_session) and how to chain via session_id, which orients the agent. But it gives no explicit when-to-use condition or when-not/alternative for the listing itself, so guidance 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.