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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that results include sources and checked dates, but lacks details such as read-only status, rate limits, auth requirements, or data freshness beyond the vague 'checked dates'.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It fits the tool's simplicity well.

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 tool is simple, all parameters are documented, and the description says results include sources and checked dates. It does not fully explain return shape or sort/limit behavior, but no output schema exists and the core invocation context is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description implies date filtering but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema for 'to', 'from', or 'lang'.

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 ('List') and resource ('upcoming Melbourne AI events') with a clear date scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the purpose is still unambiguous.

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 gives a temporal scope ('from today in Melbourne or a later date') but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The intended use is inferable, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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