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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral value beyond them: 'Requires a connected account' (auth prerequisite) and detailed filter semantics (ISO timestamps, last_n_past ordering). It does not mention pagination or default limits, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and returned fields, then the filter list, then prerequisites. Dense but every clause earns its place. The single block paragraph is slightly wall-of-text for a 10-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, date, status, visibility, location, capacity, headcount, category/community ids, total count). Combined with full filter coverage and the connected-account requirement, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 carries the full burden and does so: all 10 parameters are covered (status, upcoming_only, past_only, category, name_contains, starts_after/before, community_id, last_n_past, limit). It adds meaning the bare schema lacks — 'name_contains (e.g. a series name)', '(ISO)' for date bounds, and 'the N most recent past events, newest first' for last_n_past.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the events you host') and scopes it to owned events, which implicitly separates it from discover_events and list_shared_events. It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative by name, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It gives two concrete use cases — 'See how many events you have, or find event ids before acting on them' — which clearly frames when an agent would call this. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the context is unambiguous for a list tool.

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