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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint path — no mention of pagination behavior, default page size, ordering, or what 'events' contain. For a paginated list endpoint, that leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The endpoint string is mildly redundant but arguably useful for cross-referencing API docs. Nothing is 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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the definition is minimally sufficient to call it. However, there is no output schema, and the description says nothing about the shape of returned events or pagination semantics, so an agent cannot anticipate the response.

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 page, per_page, and search_string each documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing extra about parameter interplay (e.g., search_string scoping or per_page maximum behavior).

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 events defined in the organisation') and names the API endpoint. The scope ('in the organisation') is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling list_* tools, but 'events' is a distinct resource so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The only implicit signal is that it lists rather than filters or mutates.

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