list_vilt_session_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the separate CSA_SKILLJAR_V1_API_KEY credential requirement, the subtle timezone behavior ('09:00 is 09:00 somewhere specific'), and the semantic payoff of the nested payload (registration_count vs seats_total answers 'is it full' without a second call). No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with a crisp purpose line followed by short paragraphs, each earning its place: occurrence semantics, filter usage, nested payload value, and auth requirement. The timezone aside is both memorable and genuinely informative. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given an output schema documents return values and annotations cover safety, the description covers the remaining essentials: what, when-to-use, filter semantics, auth, and timezone nuance. The only meaningful gaps are explicit pagination behavior for page/page_size and an explicit contrast with list_ilt_sessions, both minor against the overall completeness.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers for the non-obvious parameters: filter_starts_after and filter_ends_before get ISO-8601 format and window semantics, and filter_course_id/filter_lesson_id get their narrowing meaning. However, page and page_size (2 of 6 params) are never mentioned; they are self-evident from naming, which keeps this from a 5.

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 opening line 'List scheduled session occurrences - what is running, and when' states a specific verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes itself by clarifying each row is one OCCURRENCE of a session with starts_at/ends_at/timezone, which differentiates it from the sibling list_ilt_sessions. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns and how it differs from the plain session-list variant.

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?

'This is the tool for any question with a date in it' is explicit and memorable usage guidance, and the description explains how to frame window questions (upcoming, last quarter, a particular week) via the two timestamp filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the date-centric positioning strongly implies the routing decision.

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