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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable non-obvious traits: dense ranges produce explicit truncation guidance and can be retried with a smaller range, and timed events expose displayTime.label in household timezone while startAt/endAt are instants. This meaningfully helps an agent interpret results and handle limits.

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 response is two sentences and front-loads the usage trigger before operational caveats. The second sentence is slightly dense, bundling timezone guidance and time-value semantics, but every clause carries useful information without repetition.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. Combined with fully documented parameters, the added truncation and timezone semantics make the definition largely complete for correct invocation, though sibling differentiation remains a gap.

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%: both startDate and endDateExclusive are documented, including the exclusive boundary semantics and YYYY-MM-DD pattern. The description confirms date-range filtering but adds no syntax or boundary details beyond the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the resource (household events) and scope (a date range), so an agent knows this is a filtered schedule lookup. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from the close sibling find_events, which also appears to retrieve events, leaving ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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 direct usage trigger ('Use this when you need household events in a date range') and adds operational guidance for dense ranges (expect truncation, retry with a smaller range). It stops short of naming alternatives like find_events or stating when not to use this tool.

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