Get events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the date-range scoping, which is also evident from the parameters. It does not disclose return format, ordering, or any caveats, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden and the description provides some context.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It directly states the tool's purpose and is easily scannable. It earns its place without 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool, the description is adequately complete given the full schema and clear annotations. It identifies the main action and scope, while the schema explains the parameters. The lack of an output schema is not a major issue since 'list events' naturally implies returning event objects. It leaves minor ambiguity around ordering/pagination but that is acceptable for such a 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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (start_date, end_date, athlete) documented including the YYYY-MM-DD format and coach semantics, the description need not add more. The phrase 'in a date range' aligns with the required parameters, but it adds no new details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a precise action ('List') on a clear resource ('events') with a scope ('in a date range'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tp_get_focus_event and tp_get_next_event, which retrieve single events, by clearly indicating this is a bulk listing operation.

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 description gives a clear context for use: when you need to list events within a date range. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is straightforward enough that the agent will likely choose it correctly. No exclusions are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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