list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the data source and coverage, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or any potential side effects. The example helps, but more transparency (e.g., idempotency, auth requirements) would improve the score.

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 concise, uses clear sections (Args, Returns, Example, Note), and every sentence adds value. It is well-structured 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 simplicity (one parameter, list output), the description covers the purpose, input, output, example, and relationship to sibling. It lacks only minor details like error handling or performance, but is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has no description for the 'year' parameter. The tool description adds 'Season year (1950-present)' providing clear meaning and range. With only one parameter and full coverage via description, it adds significant 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 'List all events in a season' with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_schedule' by calling itself a 'minimal version', providing clear 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 notes the tool is 'useful for discovering valid event names to pass to other tools' and specifies the data source and coverage. It implicitly advises using 'get_schedule' for more detail, but does not explicitly list when not to use this tool. Overall clear usage context.

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