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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds two pieces of real context beyond annotations: date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the legacy-events-only API limitation, plus the underlying endpoint. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences, filtering scope front-loaded, with the legacy-API caveat appended where it belongs. The trailing endpoint reference ('Neon: GET /events') is mildly redundant but cheap.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, no required args, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter surface, date format, and a meaningful data-scope caveat. Only pagination/ordering behavior is left 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters including their filter semantics. The description's only add is the YYYY-MM-DD format note, which the schema also states for the date fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List events') and enumerates the filter dimensions, which separates it from the singular neon_get_event and from neon_list_event_registrations. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the scope ('Only Neon's legacy events') is distinctive enough to route an agent.

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 description lists filters but gives no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this list tool over neon_search or neon_get_event, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implicitly derivable from the filter list.

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