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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that only Neon's legacy events are exposed by the API — a scope limitation an agent could not infer from the schema. It omits pagination behavior and return shape, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 the capability and filters, followed by scope and endpoint metadata. Every sentence carries information, though the endpoint trailer ('Neon: GET /events.') is low-value for an MCP agent that never issues raw HTTP.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape for a paginated list endpoint, and it says nothing about the response envelope or how page_size/current_page interact. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and the readOnly annotation, the definition is adequate but has an evident gap around results handling.

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 all ten parameters documented including page_size, current_page, published_event, and the four date bounds. The description's only added detail, the YYYY-MM-DD format, is already repeated verbatim in the schema, 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 events) and enumerates the filterable dimensions — name, category, date window, published/archived state — so the agent can distinguish it from neon_get_event (single event) and neon_list_event_registrations (a different resource). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

The filter dimensions, the YYYY-MM-DD date convention, and the 'legacy events only' scope note imply how the tool should be used, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus neon_get_event for detail lookups or neon_list_event_registrations for registration data. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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