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

The description labels the tool as 'Read-only', matching the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It also adds the requirement of a connected account, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence lists output fields, the second states purpose and filters. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers key output fields and the total count. It mentions filters and prerequisites. Missing details like sorting, pagination, or error conditions, but acceptable for a simple 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?

The description names the three optional parameters (status, upcoming_only, limit) as filters, but provides no details on allowed values, data types, or behavior. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks depth.

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 clearly states it lists events hosted by the user with specific fields, and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_shared_events by specifying 'you host'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all event list variants.

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 explains two use cases: counting events and finding event IDs. It also notes the prerequisite of a connected account. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is adequate.

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