Get next event

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the event is 'nearest future planned' but does not disclose return behavior when none exists, timezone handling, or field details.

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?

One short sentence with the action and target front-loaded; no filler or redundancy. It earns every word at this length.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It misses a note on behavior when no future event exists and does not contrast with tp_get_focus_event, but the core operation is clear.

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 single optional parameter is fully described in the input schema (athlete name/ID, coach-only, omit for own profile), so the description does not need to add much. The description itself adds no parameter details, which is acceptable given 100% 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('nearest future planned event'), making its function evident. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like tp_get_events and tp_get_focus_event by its 'nearest future' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving the next upcoming event, with no mention of when to prefer tp_get_events or tp_get_focus_event. It provides the core trigger ('nearest future planned event') but lacks explicit exclusions or an alternative choice.

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