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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds useful content — the exact entity shape and the note that the returned ids/names feed gift recording and search filters — but says nothing about volume, pagination behavior, or whether results are sorted.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the entity and its fields, followed by downstream-use advice and the API endpoint. No padding, though the endpoint string is marginal value for an agent that only sees the tool interface.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately by enumerating the fields. Combined with annotations covering read-only safety and a fully documented 2-param schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only sorting/ordering and result volume are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (limit, offset) are fully documented in the schema, including LGL's default of 25 and the next_item usage pattern. The description contributes nothing about limit/offset, 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?

The description names the resource (events) and enumerates the meaningful fields returned (dates, campaign, event type, goal, active flag), plus the underlying endpoint GET /api/v1/events. It never states the verb explicitly — 'list' comes only from the title — but the noun phrase plus endpoint make the operation unambiguous and distinguishable from lgl_list_campaigns/funds.

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?

'Use the ids and names when recording gifts or filtering searches' is guidance about consuming the output downstream, not about when to call this tool versus a sibling. There is no trigger condition, prerequisite, or exclusion stated, so the agent must infer when a listing of events is appropriate.

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