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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the required role scope, the underlying endpoint, and the notable data exclusion ('SSO links are not returned'), which prevents an agent from expecting that field.

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 compact sentences plus an endpoint reference; the field inventory and the exclusion note come first. Nothing is padded, though the raw endpoint path is marginal value for an agent.

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 8 optional params and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the event attributes returned. Auth scope is stated, and pagination is handled by the schema's limit description, so only minor gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so per-parameter meaning is already documented in structured form. The description echoes the date-range semantics (

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?

Names the resource (club calendar events) and the bounding filter (between two dates), then enumerates the returned fields, which signals a flat event listing rather than registrations or waitlists. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like courtreserve_list_event_registrations, but the field list makes the distinction inferable.

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?

'Needs the EventCalendar role (Read)' gives a prerequisite, and category_id points to courtreserve_list_event_categories for lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to the sibling registration/waitlist tools, leaving usage largely implied.

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