List events

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value here is real: it discloses the inclusion rule (hosted or cohosted only, invitees excluded), the sort order per time range, and the meaning of the returned fields. It stops short of covering pagination behavior or result-size limits beyond what the schema states.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by scope, ordering, and the event_id hand-off. No sentence repeats structured data or wastes space.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so well (fields, ordering, statuses, guest counts). It doesn't sketch the shape of an individual event object or mention pagination fields, which would matter for an agent assembling follow-up calls.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds genuine meaning: 'Upcoming come soonest first, past most recent first' explains the consequence of the `when` enum values rather than just restating them. `limit` and `cursor` are left entirely to the schema, so it isn't a full 5.

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 states a specific resource (events this account hosts or cohosts) and enumerates what is returned: start/end in event time zone, active or canceled status, and guest counts per RSVP status. Scope exclusions ('events you were only invited to are left out') further sharpen the purpose. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_event or list_past_guests, which keeps it at 4.

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?

'Use event_id in the other tools' gives an explicit hand-off to the rest of the toolset, and the Hosting-tab analogy plus the invited-events exclusion give clear usage context. There's no explicit statement of when to prefer get_event (single event detail) over this list, so it isn't a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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