List ChurchTools events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network scope are covered by structured data. The description's contribution is the enumeration of returned fields, which is useful but is data shape rather than behavior; it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what happens with the schema-documented default range. Credit above baseline but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: capability and scope first, sibling routing second. The parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place because there is no output schema to carry that 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?

With no output schema, the description voluntarily documents the return payload, which is exactly the gap a listing tool would otherwise leave. Combined with the annotation-covered safety profile and fully documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, with detailed per-parameter docs including the ChurchTools default behavior when "to" is omitted. The description only says "in a date range" and adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Lists the events in a date range" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description goes further by enumerating exactly which fields come back (id, name, start, end, canceled state, service assignments). It explicitly contrasts itself with ct_get_event, so an agent can separate it from the single-event sibling without reading either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: "Use ct_get_event for service names and the whole event." That is a concrete routing rule, not a vague hint, and the date-range scope in the first sentence tells the agent when this tool is the right one.

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