list_events

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool returns ids, start times, and teams, which is useful. However, it does not describe default date behavior, filtering semantics, response shape, pagination, or sorting, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a list 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and outputs; the second gives the practical use case. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description names purpose, usage, and returned fields, which covers most of what an agent needs. It does not mention defaults for date/limit or whether the response is an array, but the schema supplies parameter details and the tool is low complexity.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only frames the overall use case. The limit parameter lacks a schema description and the description does not compensate for it, but the min/max constraints in the schema provide some guidance.

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 and resource ('List events (games)') and names the key returned fields: ids, start times, teams. It also states the main use case (finding an event id before fetching odds). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list tools like list_sports or list_sportsbooks, so it misses the top 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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this to find an event id before fetching odds for it.' This tells an agent when to reach for this tool and how it fits into the odds workflow. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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