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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds that a special account-level permission is required and that failure yields a 403, plus that results are paged. It stops short of describing page ceiling behavior or total-count metadata, but the auth and paging disclosures exceed what the annotation provides.

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 purpose and scope before prerequisite and endpoint. No filler; 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?

Given seven optional filters, a permission gate and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, paging and the underlying endpoint. It omits any hint of the returned event shape or how paging terminates, which is a minor gap for a list tool but not a blocking one.

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 page, page_size, type, category, subcategory, override_location and with_artists_only are all documented in the schema itself, including enum values and the subcategory-requires-category constraint. The description only restates the filterable axes (type, category, subcategory) without adding format or interaction detail, so the baseline 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 verb and resource ('List public events') plus scope ('from across the whole Humanitix platform'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the account-scoped humanitix_list_events sibling. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from the word 'global'/'whole platform'.

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 a real prerequisite ('Requires a special permission Humanitix activates on your account, 403 otherwise') and notes paging, which helps an agent decide whether it can call it. However, it never states when to prefer this over humanitix_list_events or the related humanitix_list_global_event_dates, leaving the choice to inference.

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