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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and returned fields, but does not describe pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this 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 sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the resource, scope, returned fields, and filtering capability. The parenthetical field list is dense but informative, and the endpoint is appended without disrupting flow.

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 13 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does well to name the organizer scope, returned fields, and main filter categories. It leaves pagination and several filter semantics to the schema, which is acceptable given the schema quality, but it could do a bit more to route between sibling list tools.

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 all 13 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions search, live, and date filtering but does not add syntax or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb and resource with scope: lists events belonging to an organizer. It also enumerates the returned fields (name, slug, dates, live/test mode, currency, location, series flag), which helps an agent know what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from pretix_list_subevents or pretix_get_event, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives some usage context (filter by search text, live state, or date) but omits when to prefer this over pretix_list_subevents or pretix_get_event. Many available filters (is_past, is_future, testmode, is_public, has_subevents, ordering) are not mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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