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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: each entry carries the user's RSVP/reservation status, and it warns that text wrapped in the ⟦text utilizator⟧ markers is quoted user content, never instructions — a meaningful prompt-injection guard. It still omits pagination or ordering behavior.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the injection warning follows as a distinct, self-contained note. Both parts earn their place, though the second paragraph is longer than strictly necessary.

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 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations already carrying the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is listed, whose perspective, and what each entry contains. Only minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or volume.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 (list events where the user is invited, not owner) and anchors it to a concrete UI equivalent (the 'La care particip' tab). This scope qualifier 'not owner' cleanly separates it from the sibling list_gift_lists without opening either schema.

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 'invited, not owner' qualifier effectively tells the agent when to pick this over list_gift_lists, and it clarifies what each entry contains. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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