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 structurally. The description contributes the returned field set (title, dates, nature, code, location) and the underlying GET path, but says nothing about pagination limits or total-count behavior beyond what the schema already implies.

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 plus the path: purpose and returned fields first, filters second, endpoint last. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

For a 10-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the shape of the returned records and the filter axes, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing paging behavior, but the schema already spells out max_results, first_result and the continuation value.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is already documented, including RFC 3339 formats and the next_first_result continuation hint. The description only restates the filter dimensions at a high level, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("event parts"), then parenthetically enumerates what those are (sessions, workshops, activities) and which fields come back. The plural list framing separates it cleanly from the singular sibling evenium_get_event_part without having to compare schemas.

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 title and start/end/update dates" implies when the filters apply, and mentioning the endpoint implies the read context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over evenium_list_event_part_registrations or evenium_get_event_part, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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