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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the types of events included, the default to upcoming events, and the exact fields returned. It does not contradict annotations and provides value beyond them.

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 sentences, each purposeful: the first lists content, the second gives usage, the third states the default. No fluff or repetition. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the fields returned, the use case, and the default behavior. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only list tool.

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% and the schema describes includePast as 'also return events whose date has passed.' The description adds the default value ('Defaults to upcoming events'), which clarifies the parameter's behavior without redundancy. This exceeds the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 it lists the athlete's events with specific types (races, key rides, FTP tests, camps) and enumerates the fields returned (id, date, name, location, URLs, route stats, notes). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_activities or create_event.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to find an event id before writing fueling/pacing guidance with set_event_notes,' giving a clear when-to-use context. It also mentions the default behavior of upcoming events. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that this is a minor gap.

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