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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: recurring events are expanded in results, and results are paged via limit/offset. It does not detail result ordering or how expansion affects counts, keeping it just short of full transparency.

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 core search action and constraint, then the recurring-expansion caveat and paging model. Every clause carries information; the trailing endpoint reference is compact and useful for an open-world HTTP tool.

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 search tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers search semantics, the 'today only' default trap, expansion behavior, and pagination. Missing only minor return-shape details (result ordering, what next_offset looks like), which the schema's offset description partly compensates for.

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 seven parameters are already documented in the schema (defaults, bounds, formats, next_offset usage). The description restates the query length and default date range but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 and resource ('Search events by keyword... within a date range') plus the two key constraints (query length, date scope). This clearly separates it from the sibling teamup_list_events, which has no keyword search, and from teamup_list_changed_events. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the 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 actionable usage context: the default range is today only, 'so always pass the range you mean', and notes paging via limit/offset. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over teamup_list_events or teamup_list_changed_events, so it falls short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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