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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: results are split into separate events with dates, ordered upcoming-first, and include the current FME Skill Booster workshop topic and recorded-sessions page. It does not mention pagination or result volume, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and packs the filtering rule at the end. The enumeration of event types is slightly list-heavy but each item conveys real scope information rather than filler.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (which event categories), ordering, and the past-event filter. The only gap is whether individual event records include links, dates in a specific format, or locations, which an agent might still want to know.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the locale enum values. The description restates include_past's effect in prose but adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'List' and the resource ('Avineon's events from the website') are stated up front, and the enumeration of event types (conferences, FME UK Tour, Geo Explore, sessions, recorded-sessions page) makes the scope concrete. It is distinguishable from siblings like find_fme_training or search_site, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 default filtering behavior is stated ('Past events are left out unless include_past is true'), which implies when to flip the flag. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over find_fme_training or get_page, nor any prerequisite or exclusion statements beyond the past-events rule.

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