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

With no annotations, the description notes it lists 'all canonical events,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination, or potential payload size. The word 'canonical' adds some context but doesn't substantially expand behavioral understanding.

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?

The description is a single short phrase, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description sufficiently states scope ('all canonical events of Alpha') and is largely complete given the lack of complexity. However, it doesn't mention whether results are sorted, what fields are returned, or how it relates to get_event for per-event details, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description provides no parameter-specific meaning because none exist, aligning with the baseline score of 4 for parameterless tools.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists all canonical events of Alpha, using a specific verb (목록 = list) and resource (events). This distinguishes it from get_event (singular) and other sibling tools, making the purpose unequivocal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_event should be used for a single event or that search_alpha provides filtering, leaving the usage context entirely unaddressed.

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