pws_get_events

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the scope ('active and archived') and the content returned ('recurrence, defaults, and show counts'), which is meaningful behavioral context for a no-parameter read operation.

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 entire description is one tight, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and expected result fields without any filler. Every word contributes useful information.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with a small resource scope, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit note about the output shape or ordering, but the stated fields and the absence of parameters make the behavior understandable without an output schema.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description appropriately omits parameter details because none exist.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('player-company event series'), and narrows scope with 'active and archived' plus the returned aspects ('recurrence, defaults, and show counts'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like pws_get_upcoming_shows or pws_get_show, which target individual upcoming shows rather than event series.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a read-only listing context, but it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools such as pws_get_upcoming_shows or pws_set_event_active, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection.

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