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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds non-obvious privacy/visibility context: the organizer's AI hint is private and not returned, and review.card is the human-reviewable portion. It does not add auth/rate/permission details, but with annotations the bar is lower.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned resource and followed by field-role clarifications. No redundant text, though the first sentence is terse enough to be slightly underspecified.

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 low-complexity read-only status tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description identifies the returned state/card and one key exclusion. It still leaves 'application state' vague and does not describe response shape or status values, so it is only adequately 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?

The single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source via connect_status events_open[].slug, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 the resource (event application) and what it returns (state and card), and distinguishes review.card from the private organizer AI hint. However, it omits an explicit verb and does not name or contrast sibling tools such as event_applications, start_event_application, or send_event_application.

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?

Implies usage for inspecting an event application's current state/card and clarifies that review.card is what a human reviews before sending. It does not state when to use this rather than event_applications, start_event_application, or send_event_application, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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