get_events

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose that closures are bundled into the response alongside programs. It does not say whether closures are still returned when program_type filters everything out, nor whether the call is read-only, cached, or rate-limited, which are the behaviors an agent most needs for a no-annotation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope stated first and the response contents parenthesized; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the schema covers most parameters. The remaining gap is the interaction between the program_type filter and the always-included closures, plus any route to broader or narrower siblings.

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 coverage is 67% and both date and program_type are already well documented in the schema, including examples and a pointer to list_program_types. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own and is silent on include_description, the one undocumented parameter.

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 names a specific resource (programs) and scope (one day) and lists the fields returned (time, type, venue) plus an extra data class (closures). The single-day scope implicitly separates it from get_week and get_events_range, though those siblings are never named.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'one day' phrasing; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over get_week, get_events_range, or search_events. An agent can infer the narrow-then-broad ordering but must reason about it rather than read it.

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