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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only names event categories and filters; it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, sorting, combination rules for filters, or whether any side effects exist. Being a 'list' command implies read-only, but the description itself does not articulate this or other behavioral traits.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the subject, provides concrete examples of event types, and ends with the filtering options. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list tool with four optional parameters and a fully documented schema. It covers the event domain and filter dimensions. It could be slightly more complete by stating that the tool returns a list or how filters combine, but the terms 'list' and 'filter' convey enough for correct invocation.

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 schema covers all four parameters (type, limit, month, state), so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest semantic value by listing event categories and grouping filter dimensions, but it does not substantially explain parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's resource as Motocross races and events, enumerating specific event categories and stating the available filters. The name 'list_events' plus the description of event types distinguishes this from sibling tools that are all track-related (find_tracks_near, get_track, search_tracks).

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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need to see Motocross events and filter them by state, month, or type. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools, state when not to use it, or mention any relationships to the sibling track tools.

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