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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — the scope is limited to host-created events — but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or whether filters are inclusive at the boundaries.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, scope, and filter axes, and no filler. Everything it says contributes to tool selection.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and confirming annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and what "host-created" excludes, but no output schema is needed here and safety is fully covered.

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%, with each of the five parameters documented in the schema (ISO dates, UUID, page/limit defaults). The description only restates the calendar and date filters already covered by the schema, so it adds no meaning beyond it — baseline 3.

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 verb and resource ("List host-created events") plus the optional filter dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from near neighbors such as neuron_list_calendars or neuron_list_bookings, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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?

"Optionally filtered by calendar and date range" implies the use case but never states when to prefer this over neuron_list_bookings, neuron_get_availability, or neuron_get_calendar. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so guidance is only implied.

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