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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new event' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't address permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate titles, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise - one sentence that states the purpose and lists required parameters. It's front-loaded with the core action. While efficient, it could potentially benefit from slightly more context given the mutation nature of the operation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what happens after creation (success response, error conditions), permissions needed, or how this tool relates to sibling operations like 'update_event' or 'delete_event'. The agent lacks critical context for proper tool invocation.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 6 parameters. The description lists the required parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format expectations beyond ISO 8601 for times, what 'capacity' means operationally). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new event') and specifies the required resources (title, description, times, location, capacity). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_event' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation-related tools that might exist in the broader context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_event' or 'list_events'. It mentions required parameters but doesn't indicate prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for event creation versus other operations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authorization constraint ('Only the organizer can delete their events'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to associated data (e.g., registrations), error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a destructive 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 description is two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and authorization but lacks details on permanence, side effects, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity of deletion, more context would be helpful for safe agent operation.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the 'event_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or ID sourcing. This meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'unregister_from_event' or 'update_event' beyond the core verb, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Only the organizer can delete their events'), which helps the agent understand authorization requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'update_event' to cancel instead of delete), 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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., event name, date, location), whether it's read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific event by its ID'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information'. It doesn't explain what details are returned (e.g., event attributes), potential errors (e.g., invalid ID), or how it differs from siblings like 'list_events'. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full context and behavior.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'event_id' clearly documented as 'The ID of the event to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific event by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_events' (which retrieves multiple events) or 'get_event_registrations' (which focuses on registrations rather than event details), missing full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that 'list_events' is for multiple events or 'get_event_registrations' is for registration data, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid event ID. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions access restrictions ('Only available to the event organizer'), which is useful. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, error handling, or other behavioral traits, making it insufficient for a mutation-free but data-sensitive 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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a key constraint, making it appropriately sized and structured for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose and access restriction. For a tool with one parameter and 100% schema coverage, it is adequate but lacks details on return values or behavioral nuances, leaving room for improvement in 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 100%, with the single parameter 'event_id' documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all registrations for an event'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_my_registrations' or 'manage_registration', which limits differentiation.

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 provides some context by stating 'Only available to the event organizer', which implies usage is restricted to organizers. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_my_registrations' or 'manage_registration', leaving gaps in guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves events but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of events. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., event details, formats), error conditions, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a retrieval tool in a context with multiple event-related siblings, this leaves too many open questions.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, but it doesn't explicitly state that no parameters are required, slightly reducing clarity. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('events organized by the current user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_events' or 'get_event', which could retrieve different event sets, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_events' (which might retrieve all events) or 'get_event' (which retrieves a specific event). It implies usage for the current user's events but offers no exclusions or prerequisites, resulting in minimal usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves profile information but doesn't specify what data is included (e.g., name, email, preferences), whether it requires authentication, or how errors are handled. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential information. Every part of the description earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on returned data format or behavioral context. For a read-only profile tool, more information about output structure would be helpful, but the absence of an output schema means the description doesn't fully compensate.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools without parameters, though it doesn't add extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current user's profile information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_event or get_my_registrations by focusing specifically on profile data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (though none are present in the sibling list), preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes tools for events and registrations, there's no explicit comparison or context for choosing this tool. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, timing, or relationship to other tools, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs (e.g., if it requires user login), rate limits, error conditions, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on behavior (e.g., authentication, return format) and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured data, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a read operation 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, which is efficient. A baseline of 4 is given since it avoids unnecessary information, though it doesn't add value beyond the schema (which is fine here).

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all events the current user is registered for'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_hosted_events' or 'get_event_registrations', which prevents a perfect score.

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 usage by stating 'the current user,' suggesting it's for retrieving one's own registrations. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_event_registrations' (which might list all registrations for an event) or 'list_events' (which might show all events regardless of registration). No clear exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking connection and verifying authentication, which provides some context about what the tool does, but doesn't describe what happens when authentication fails, what specific checks are performed, whether this makes any changes to the system, or what the response format looks like. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple diagnostic tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details about what specific checks are performed, what the response contains, or what happens in failure scenarios. While it's complete enough to understand the general function, it doesn't provide sufficient context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it doesn't attempt to do so, which is appropriate given the empty input schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Check the connection' and 'verify authentication') and the target resource ('EventHorizon API'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which focus on event management operations rather than system health. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 usage context (verifying API connectivity and authentication) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It suggests this is for diagnostic purposes but lacks specific guidance on timing or prerequisites for use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'available' means (e.g., public vs. private events). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adding optional features. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., event fields, pagination), authentication needs, error handling, and how 'available' is defined. For a list tool with potential filtering and sibling complexity, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'filter by search term or location', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or interaction effects. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'events', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_event' (singular) and 'get_my_hosted_events' (user-specific) by implying a comprehensive listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'get_event_registrations'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as authentication needs, or compare it to siblings like 'get_my_hosted_events' for user-specific lists. Usage is implied only through the action 'list all available events'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the permission requirement ('Only available to the event organizer') but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether actions are reversible, notifications sent, or impact on event capacity), rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with permissions) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and permissions but misses behavioral details like side effects or return values. For a tool with no structured safety hints, it should do more to compensate.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (registration_id and action with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the verb ('manage') and resource ('registration'), specifying the exact actions (approve, waitlist, or cancel). It distinguishes from siblings like 'register_for_event' (create) and 'unregister_from_event' (delete) by focusing on status management rather than creation or deletion.

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 explicitly states 'Only available to the event organizer,' providing clear context about user permissions. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_event' for broader event changes or 'unregister_from_event' for cancellation by attendees, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('register') which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., event full, registration closed), or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation details). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and doesn't waste space on redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a registration tool (a write operation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after registration (e.g., confirmation details, errors), authentication needs, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'manage_registration'. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('event_id' and 'answers') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for 'answers' or constraints on 'event_id'. This meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the action ('register') and target ('the current user for an event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'unregister_from_event' by specifying registration rather than cancellation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'manage_registration' which might handle similar functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'manage_registration' or 'unregister_from_event'. It mentions the current user but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., user must be logged in) or contextual constraints (e.g., event must be open for registration).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('unregister') but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects other users, or has side effects like notifications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like reversibility or permissions, nor does it hint at return values or error conditions. For a tool that modifies user-event relationships, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'event_id' fully documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain event ID format or sourcing). This meets the baseline score when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 clearly states the action ('unregister') and target ('the current user from an event'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'manage_registration' or 'delete_event', which might also handle event-related removals, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'manage_registration' or 'delete_event'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., user must be registered first) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update an existing event' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the event doesn't exist), side effects, or response format. The partial update guidance is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides important usage guidance about partial updates.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about authentication, error conditions, response format, and how the update interacts with other tools (e.g., event registrations). The partial update guidance is helpful but doesn't compensate for these significant gaps.

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 each parameter clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing partial updates ('Only provide the fields you want to change'), which is useful context but doesn't provide additional semantic details about the parameters themselves.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_event' beyond the obvious 'update' vs 'create' distinction, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 provides some usage guidance with 'Only provide the fields you want to change,' which implies partial updates are supported. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_event' or 'delete_event,' nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions.

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