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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, closed world). The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavior — cancelled dates are included and flagged rather than filtered out — which matters for interpreting results. It says nothing about ordering, how many results come back by default, or what the response records contain, so the disclosure is useful but thin.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition before the query-style examples and the cancellation caveat. Little waste, though the two example questions could arguably be one.

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 no output schema, the description carries some burden for describing what comes back; it partially meets this by telling the agent that cancelled sessions appear and are marked. Gaps remain around result count/default limit behavior and the fact that all five parameters are optional, but the essentials for calling it correctly are 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 coverage is 60%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented remainder; it does not. It re-states the `question` parameter with illustrative examples (modest added value, since the schema already says 'plain-English question' and that other fields override it) and ignores `when`'s enum, `limit` bounds, and `near`'s accepted formats.

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?

Names the resource ('sessions and activities') and the two axes it operates on ('a time and place'), which is a specific retrieval purpose. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling, search_services, so an agent must infer whether 'what's on' and 'search services' overlap.

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 two example questions imply the intended use for natural-language event queries, but the description never says when to prefer this over search_services or get_service, nor what conditions make it the wrong choice. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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