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 usefully adds that each event carries location, times and participants, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the page/per_page/direction parameters in the schema.

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 compact sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the return shape. No filler or redundancy.

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, nine-parameter list endpoint with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could note pagination or filtering behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and every parameter (page, per_page, date_from/to/from_date, series_id, employee_id, location_id, direction) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filtering or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (List) and a precisely scoped resource (non-lesson calendar events), enumerating examples (meetings, open houses, staff work) and noting the returned fields. The 'non-lesson' framing immediately distinguishes it from the teachworks_list_lessons sibling.

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 'non-lesson' qualifier implies when this tool applies versus list_lessons, but no explicit routing or exclusion guidance is given. There is no statement about prerequisites or when NOT to use it, leaving the contrast to inference.

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