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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (per-event registration status, post status, category), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior for an unknown contact.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and what can be filtered. The trailing REST path is arguably redundant but harmless context; nothing else is wasted.

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 enumerates the fields attached to each event, and the 100%-covered schema carries the parameter detail. Gaps remain around pagination/result-size behavior and error cases for a 7-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every date parameter is fully documented in the schema with RFC 3339 format and CET fallback. The description only summarizes the filter families (start/end/creation), adding no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource and relationship — the events a contact is invited to — and adds that each entry carries that contact's registration (status, post status, category), which is distinct from plain event listing. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with (e.g. evenium_list_events or evenium_get_guest), so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'Filter by event start, end or creation date' tells the agent what the filters do, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over evenium_list_events or evenium_get_contact. Usage is implied by the resource scope rather than stated.

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