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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds useful operational context — that only public events are returned, that a limit of 0 asks Luma for the entire period (a real cost/payload risk), and that pagination runs through has_more. It does not describe ordering, rate limits, or what happens when a calendar is invalid or private, which would have pushed this higher.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope and period selection first, then the period=bounds rule and cursor contract, then the limit=0 caveat. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 six parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the decisions an agent actually has to make (period choice, bounds, cursor, limit). The remaining gap is disambiguation from the many sibling Luma event tools, which the description never addresses.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it states that period defaults to future (the schema only lists documented values), reinforces that specific requires both RFC3339 bounds, and specifies that the cursor must be passed back unchanged when has_more is true — a contract the schema's 'opaque cursor' wording does not convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists public events for one Luma calendar') and names the time scopes it supports. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as luma_place_events, luma_category_events, or luma_calendar, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

It tells the agent how to pick a period: future is the default, past and specific are alternatives, and specific requires both bounds. What is missing is any routing guidance against the sibling event-listing tools, so the when-to-use-this-vs-that decision is only partially answered.

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