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

Adds real behavior beyond readOnlyHint=true: an authorization prerequisite with the concrete failure mode (403), pagination ('Paged'), and the underlying GET endpoint. Missing detail on pagination limits/return shape keeps it from a 5.

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 the tool returns and its scope, followed by the permission caveat, pagination note, and endpoint. No filler.

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?

A read-only list tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations and whose seven parameters are fully documented in the schema; the description adds the permission gate, pagination, and endpoint. Return format is not described, but no output schema exists to cover it either.

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% with enums and constraints fully documented, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description only restates the filterable fields (type, category, subcategory) without adding syntax or usage nuance, so 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 public events) plus a precise scope: across the whole Humanitix platform. The platform-wide scope implicitly separates it from humanitix_list_events, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear context for when this tool applies: platform-wide (not account-scoped) events, gated behind a special permission that yields a 403 otherwise. It does not explicitly contrast with humanitix_list_events or state when not to use it, so no exclusions are offered.

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