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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain scope (what counts as an event) but omits a meaningful behavioral trait: the schema default status='upcoming' means past events are excluded unless overridden, which an agent would not learn from the description.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the filter options. No redundant or filler text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The only real gap is the undisclosed default status filter, which is a minor but relevant omission for a list tool.

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 83% and the enums and locale parameter are already richly documented in the schema. The description names the filterable dimensions but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail (e.g. the 2-letter country code, the limit cap) beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('vanlife events'), then enumerates the event categories it covers (expos, festivals, meetups, forums, road trips) and the filter dimensions. This clearly separates it from the singular sibling get_event.

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 filter list ('status, type, country, or free-text search') implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_event for fetching a single event, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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