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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds context about event categories and filter dimensions, but does not disclose additional safety concerns or edge cases. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by filter options. No wasted words, all content relevant.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with a rich schema and safety annotations. The description conveys the scope and filter options; it could mention default limit/locale or that it returns only upcoming by default, but the schema covers these. Overall it is adequate for agent selection and invocation.

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 covers 5/6 parameters with descriptions (83%). The description restates the main filter fields (status, type, country, search) but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema. 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 action ('List') and resource ('vanlife events'), with concrete categories (expos, festivals, meetups, forums, road trips). This clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_event' which retrieves a single event.

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 via filtering options, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_event' for single-event retrieval or 'search_stories' for other content. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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