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

Annotations already carry the read-only/idempotent/open-world profile, so the description's remaining job is content disclosure, which it does: it specifies 'public upcoming' only (no past, no private) and flatly states it never returns guest lists or attendee data. That output-content limit is genuinely additive beyond the annotations and prevents a wrong expectation about privacy-sensitive data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the second sentence is a high-value negative constraint. Nothing redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description discloses the key return-shape facts (event listings, no attendees) and the schema covers pagination and limits. Some detail about what fields each event carries is absent, which is the only real gap 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (limit range, cursor, calendar_id format) are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description's parenthetical about organizer calendars does not add format or behavior detail beyond what the schema's calendar_id description already says.

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 — listing public upcoming events on a Luma organizer calendar — with an explicit scoping constraint ('organizer calendar page'). It stops short of naming how it differs from the nearby luma_events/luma_event siblings, so an agent must infer the split between 'one calendar's events' and the broader event tools.

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 phrase 'on a Luma organizer calendar page' implies the use case (enumerate a specific organizer's series), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to luma_events for cross-calendar searches. Useful implication, no stated alternatives.

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