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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: timestamps are epoch milliseconds and the underlying call is POST /event/list[/{status}]. It says nothing about the response envelope (total count) or pagination defaults.

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 dense sentences with the resource and return fields front-loaded, followed by filter capabilities and endpoint. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated or padded.

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 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the agent the essential framing: what is returned, the timestamp format, and which parameters are the intended primary filters. It stops short of describing the paging envelope or default sort, though the offset parameter's schema text partially covers that.

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%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters in detail. The description restates the filter groups (status, published, open_to_public, starts window, search) that the schema already names, adding only the epoch-millisecond note. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the organization's events') plus what the records carry (dates, venue, publication flags). No sibling in the list deals with events, so this is unambiguously distinguishable from the membership/invoice/directory tools.

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?

It enumerates the available narrowing strategies (status, published/open-to-public flags, start-date window, title word), which implies how the tool is meant to be used. However, it never says when to prefer one filter over another, when not to use this tool, or what to do with the sibling listing tools.

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