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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the required OAuth scope, membership prerequisite, and role-based restrictions, which go beyond the simple action of creating. It does not detail side effects or error conditions, but the disclosed constraints are substantial and beyond schema information.

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 exactly two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. Every clause adds value: action, event type, venue, auth scope, membership requirement, and role limitation. No wasted words.

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's complexity (11 parameters, multiple types of events, role restrictions) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description covers the critical contextual prerequisites and constraints well. It lacks explicit return-value information, but that is not a strict requirement when no output schema exists. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for safe 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?

The input schema covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by distinguishing 'open event' vs 'private table', which clarifies the roles of parameters like tableId and accessCode. This extra meaning elevates the score above 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 tool's purpose: to create a new event (open or private table) at a venue. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('event'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rsvp_event (attend) and search_events (read).

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 provides context on when the tool can be used: it requires a personal access token with `write:create_event` scope, the user must be a venue member, and only staff/CL can create open events. This implicitly instructs when not to use it (e.g., non-members), though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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