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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that — dates are UTC, and each returned event carries id, name, start/end, headcount and spots remaining — but says nothing about result limits or pagination behavior for large ranges.

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 tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then the shape of the returned event, then the timezone constraint and underlying endpoints. No filler, and the most important framing (range + optional category) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields each event returns, and the UTC note resolves a real ambiguity in the date parameters. The remaining gap is volume behavior — nothing tells an agent whether a wide range is capped or paginated.

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 three parameters, including the 'pass the next day to include the whole day' caveat and the category UUID format, are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that dates are UTC; baseline 3 applies 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 specific verb and resource ('List waiver events') and defines scope precisely: events whose date falls in a range, optionally narrowed to one category. The parenthetical defines what an event is, which helps, but it never names the obvious alternative (waiverfile_list_upcoming_events), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 the one conditional in the tool ('optionally only one event category') and points to waiverfile_list_event_categories as the source of category ids, which is genuinely useful. It does not say when to prefer this over waiverfile_list_upcoming_events or how large a range is reasonable, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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