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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects (beyond creation), idempotency, error behavior, or what happens on success. The annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description contributes nothing about the tool's actual behavior.

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 very short and to the point, which is concise. However, the structure is awkward: it includes a 'Guidance' portion that rephrases the purpose and lists parameters, adding redundancy without new information. The main purpose is front-loaded, but the extra text is not fully earned.

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?

Given the tool has 21 parameters, multiple enums, and a nested object, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the event model, relationship to categories, expected configuration, or any workflow context. No output schema is present, and the description gives no hint of the return value or side effects, leaving the tool largely unexplained beyond its name.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating a few parameter names (title, categories, sortDate) without elaboration. It neither clarifies nor contradicts the schema, so it remains at the baseline.

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 states the verb ('Create') and resource ('event'), and specifies it creates a CMS agenda event from category ids. However, it does not distinguish this from other create tools (e.g., cms_create_article) or mention alternatives, so purpose is functional but not fully 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternative creation tools, nor does it give any scenario-based instructions. The 'Guidance' phrase merely rephrases the purpose and lists some parameters, not actual usage direction.

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