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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that event_id is required and that bulk execution is supported. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 brief and to the point, using bullet points to separate actions and features. Every sentence adds value: purpose, required parameter, distinction from participants, bulk support. No filler.

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 tool with 5 parameters (only 2 explained) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return structure or behavior of unmentioned parameters. Given the context signals (no output schema, 0% parameter coverage), the description should have provided more detail.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only explains event_id and event_ids, leaving account, page_token, and max_results unexplained. This insufficiently documents the parameters, especially since the schema provides no descriptions.

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 that the tool provides info about Hotmart Events, requiring event_id. It distinguishes between info and participants actions, and notes that the current tool is for the info action. This differentiates it from the sibling tool hotmart_events_participants.

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 notes that event_id is required and that bulk execution is supported via event_ids. It implicitly suggests that for participant data, one should use a different tool (hotmart_events_participants). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or enumerate all alternatives.

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