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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields and the API endpoint, which is useful context, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what the schema implies.

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?

The description is concise and front-loads the resource definition. The three sentences are useful, though the endpoint line is marginally redundant given the tool name. Overall it is appropriately sized.

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 list tool with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the returned field names and usage context. It could more explicitly state that it returns a paginated list, but the schema covers pagination and the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 the description does not need to explain limit and offset. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 the fields returned (dates, campaign, event type, goal, active flag) and implies the list operation via the endpoint, but it does not explicitly state a verb like 'List' and relies on the tool name to make the action clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on events.

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 provides clear downstream context: 'Use the ids and names when recording gifts or filtering searches.' This tells the agent why to call the tool, though it does not explicitly compare it to alternative list tools or state when not to use it. That makes it a clear context without exclusions.

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