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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint:false and openWorldHint:false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the hard 7-day lookahead limit, the sort order ('earliest first'), and the exact result fields (start time and time zone, venue, area, attendee count, organiser, link). It does not mention pagination or result caps.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the key scoping constraint (place + 7-day window) is front-loaded before the payload description. The second sentence earns its place because there is no output schema, making the field list the only statement of return shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly picks up the burden of describing the return fields, and it also states the temporal ceiling. It stops short of covering result limits/pagination or how the from/to defaults interact, which for a list tool is a minor but real gap.

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% – the from/to/place semantics, defaults and YYYY-MM-DD pattern are all documented in the schema. The description reinforces 'local days' and 'in a place' but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Lists the public events listed on Zonori in a place') plus a hard scope limit ('within the next 7 days'), so an agent immediately knows what comes back. It does not name or contrast itself with the sibling tools find_events or list_places, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied by the temporal constraint ('between two local days within the next 7 days'), which tells the agent the valid query window without stating it as guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use-this vs use-find_events routing, so the agent must infer the division of labour between siblings.

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