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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description adds value beyond them: ordering ('Upcoming first'), an auth prerequisite ('Requires a connected account'), and status coverage ('including awaiting approval'). It stops short of return-shape/pagination detail.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences that each contribute; only 'Read-only' mildly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation. No filler or redundancy otherwise.

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, so describing the returned fields (event name, date, venue, status, link) is a genuine contribution. However, the two input parameters remain entirely undocumented, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent that wants to filter by event or include past tickets.

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?

With two parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not: neither event_id nor include_past is named or explained. 'Upcoming first' only faintly hints at the include_past default without documenting the parameter.

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+resource ('List the events you're going to — your tickets and RSVPs') and enumerates the returned fields. The 'you're going to' personal scope cleanly separates it from organizer-facing siblings like list_guests and list_ticket_sales.

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?

Implies its context (viewing your own tickets/RSVPs) but never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as discover_events or rsvp_to_event, and offers no exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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