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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: default date range, default limit of 100, no paging at all, and that the API returns only a short summary unless fields are named. The semantics of the returned `owner` field are also disclosed.

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?

Single tight paragraph, front-loaded with purpose then defaults, field selection, paging constraint, and the polling warning. The trailing 'GET /api/events' is the only marginally expendable fragment.

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 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden well by explaining that replies are short summaries and how to expand them. It never touches `workspace_id` scoping or `event_ids` vs filter interplay, but the schema documents both adequately.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the distinction between `resource_ids` as a filter and `owner` as the returned resource linkage, and the strategy 'narrow with the filters instead' of paging given the hard `limit` cap. It does not explain `tasks_only` / `no_date_only` semantics further than the schema already does.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List scheduled events and tasks') and immediately clarifies the domain vocabulary (bookings, shifts, jobs). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_event, which returns ALL fields of one event, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit guidance on defaults ('Without date_from/date_to Schedule It uses its default date range'), on how to broaden the reply ('pass fields'), on the alternative tool for full detail ('get_event returns ALL fields of one event'), and an explicit anti-pattern with a replacement ('Do not call this repeatedly to watch for changes (use modified_after)').

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