eb_series_events

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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation, the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds the behavioral detail that this tool lists occurrences, and clarifies that series_id is obtained from search results/events. However, it does not disclose pagination specifics or whether all occurrences (including past/future) are returned, which could be useful. Overall, it adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive.

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, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a key usage hint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal 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?

For a relatively simple tool with a required series_id and optional status/continuation, the description covers the core purpose and how to obtain the required parameter. The readOnly annotation and schema fill in the remaining details. It could mention the response format (e.g., that it returns a list) but 'list the occurrences' already implies this. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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% — all three parameters (series_id, status, continuation) have descriptive text. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score 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's function: 'List the occurrences of a recurring event series.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like eb_event (which lists a single event) and eb_search_events (which searches events). The mention of series_id further differentiates it as the go-to for recurring series occurrences.

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 on when to use the tool by explaining that 'Search results and events carry a series_id when they belong to one.' This implies you should use this tool when you have a series_id and want to see the occurrences. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for a competent agent.

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