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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only the actor scope and a hint that status and date information is included; it does not disclose pagination behavior, authorization requirements, or filtering constraints.

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 a single efficient sentence with the actor scope front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 three pagination parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the definition is too sparse. It does not explain pagination, result ordering, or how 'managed' events differ from other event listings.

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 would need to compensate by explaining limit, offset, and pageToken. It mentions none of them, leaving all three pagination parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description, though their names are conventional.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Elenca gli eventi gestiti') and scopes it to events managed by the organizer or super admin. This differentiates it from general event listing siblings such as events.list, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or state exclusions.

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 managed-event scope implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over events.list or other event listing tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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