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

The description adds '[Auth Required]' which is a behavioral trait beyond the empty annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits like side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: one sentence that includes the auth requirement and the core functionality. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, empty annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose and auth need, but lacks details on return format, depth of children, or error conditions.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter ('event_id' with 'Parent event ID' description), so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reinforcing that the tool lists children of that event.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('child events of a kal event'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get-event' and 'get-event-history'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get-event' or 'get-event-history'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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