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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that a pending item is created via the REST API, that it is additive and never destructive, that an API key is required, and how to obtain and send it. It also surfaces conditional data requirements (starts_at minimum; city/country for non-online events), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then the alternative, then behavior, then auth — a sensible order with no filler. It is dense with four distinct topic sentences, which is slightly more than a minimal description needs, but every sentence carries actionable information.

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 write tool with nested event data, no idempotency, and an output schema present, the description covers the mutation semantics, auth prerequisite, and conditional required fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears missing, and return values are covered by the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value beyond the schema by stating the conditional rule that city and country are required for non-online events and that invalid or incomplete data is rejected. It does not add much beyond the schema for url/title/description, keeping it short of a 5.

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 ('Submit an upcoming event...to the events product') and enumerates concrete examples (concert, gig, meetup, conference). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling report_incident, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names when to use this tool ('contribute event listings') and when not to, pointing to the alternative ('use report_incident for non-event signals'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs among six siblings.

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