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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's job is to add behavioral context. It does: it explains the default filtering (unfinished events, soonest first), the fields returned (date, location, public link), and the cross-workspace fallback (names the other workspace and reconnection page). This goes beyond the structured annotations to give the agent a complete behavioral model.

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 a single paragraph but is information-dense. It front-loads the usage guidance and provides the return format and edge-case behavior without fluff. While not broken into sections, it is still efficient and each sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters but no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's context: it explains the main use case, the alternative, the default sorting/filtering, the returned fields, and the cross-workspace edge case. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly in the intended scenario.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description reinforces the default behavior (unfinished, soonest first) which maps to the 'upcoming' parameter, but it does not add syntax details or examples beyond the schema. Per calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 tool's purpose: it lists events the member hosts (upcoming, hosted), and directly distinguishes it from connections_calendar_list (their own calendar). It also specifies the returned data (date, location, public link). This is a specific verb-resource pairing with clear sibling differentiation.

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?

The description begins with an explicit when-to-use directive ('Use this when the member asks about the events they host...') and provides a direct alternative ('for what is on their own calendar, use connections_calendar_list'). It also explains the fallback behavior when the workspace holds none of the member's events, giving clear guidance on expected behavior in edge cases.

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