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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds useful content context about what each row surfaces, but says nothing about pagination limits, whether event_id mode ignores filters, or default date behavior beyond what the schema carries.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the listing scope before the single-event mode, and no filler. The compressed phrasing ('Upcoming arrangements and courses, GLØDI's own and the clinics'') borders on cryptic but stays efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need little explanation, and the description dutifully covers them. For a seven-parameter tool with pagination and a mode switch, it leaves real gaps: no guidance on page_size behavior, no statement of how event_id interacts with type/date/clinic filters.

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 71%, so most parameters are already documented. The description does add meaning to event_id beyond the schema's brief 'One event with its program' by promising prerequisites and price tiers, but page/page_size, type, locale and from_date get no treatment, and how filters combine in event_id mode is unstated.

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 names the resource and enumerates what the listing carries (sessions, seats left, price from, registration state), plus a second mode where event_id reads a single event with program, prerequisites and price tiers. It distinguishes listing from single-read within the same tool, though it never states an explicit verb or names a sibling such as list_offers or search_treatments, so differentiation from siblings is left implicit.

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 phrase 'event_id reads one event with its program...' implies a mode switch and is the only usage cue given. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over list_offers or search_treatments, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema already says about clinic_id coming from find_clinics.

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