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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; 'This only reads the calendar' largely restates readOnlyHint. The genuinely additive detail is the cursor-based pagination behavior, which the annotations do not convey, but the description says nothing about result ordering, rate limits, or what happens with an invalid/expired cursor.

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 the purpose front-loaded and the pagination hint following. There is no filler or redundancy, though the closing sentence is close to duplicating the already-present readOnlyHint.

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 usefully previews the returned fields (timing, status, content details) and covers pagination, and the annotations carry the safety profile. It is close to complete for a paginated read tool, missing only scoping/filter behavior for brand_id and the query override.

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 50%: workspace_id and query are documented in-schema, while cursor and brand_id are not. The description partially compensates by explaining that returned cursors drive further pages, which gives cursor usable semantics, but it says nothing about brand_id or what the nested 'query' override object accepts beyond the schema's generic note.

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 content calendar events for the selected workspace') and enumerates what the payload contains (timing, status, content details). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from neighboring list/get tools such as aidelly_list_scheduled_posts or aidelly_get_scheduled_post, so the agent must infer the calendar-vs-scheduled-post boundary itself.

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 is implied by the read-only framing and the pagination instruction ('Use returned cursors to read additional pages'), which tells the agent how to iterate. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus the many other listing tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving routing to inference.

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