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

Read-only safety is already covered by readOnlyHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding what annotations do not: ordering (newest first), pagination mechanics with the response keys (total/page/pageSize), and the region-scoped storage caveat implied by override_location. It stops short of stating rate limits or default page size behavior.

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 zero waste: scope and ordering lead, filtering and paging follow, and the API endpoint trails as reference. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully names the pagination envelope keys (total/page/pageSize), compensating for the missing return contract. For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, though the region-switching behavior of override_location could use one more clause.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the intent of two filters (upcoming, changed-since) and pagination but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, such as the ISO 8601 requirement or region enum 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List your events') and adds scope detail: newest-first ordering, returned fields (dates, ticket types, pricing, capacity), and the underlying API route. 'Your events' implies account-scoped listing, which distinguishes it from humanitix_list_global_events, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 hints at when to use the filters ('Filter to upcoming events or events changed since a date') and notes paging, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives like humanitix_get_event for a single event or humanitix_list_global_events for cross-account data. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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