eb_organizer_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'public way', which may imply no authentication or public data access. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any limitations beyond what annotations and schema imply. This is acceptable but not additive.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The description, combined with the schema and annotations, gives the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly for a basic list operation. It does not explicitly mention pagination or response shape, but the schema's continuation parameter and the nature of a list tool make this reasonably complete. Slightly less than a fully comprehensive description.

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 75% (organizer_id, status, and continuation have descriptions; order_by does not). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema largely covers the semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists an organizer's events, with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'public way' hints at a distinction from likely private alternatives, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like eb_org_events, so it falls short of full 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 implies a use case ('the public way to see everything one organizer is running') but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It lacks the explicit 'use X instead' exclusions seen in high-scoring examples.

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