List events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not mention pagination via next_page, the multi-page batching (max_pages), or the fact that contact details are redacted by default unless include_contact_details is set.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first, which is good, but the trailing clause 'filtered with the documented parameters' is pure filler that could be cut without losing information.

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 an 11-parameter list tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is genuinely useful. But it omits the pagination/continuation model and the default-redaction behavior that an agent must reason about, leaving gaps that the schema descriptions only partially close.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters, including the date semantics for modified_after/before and the redaction behavior of include_contact_details. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'the documented parameters', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (events/courses/competitions) and enumerates the fields it exposes (dates, deadline, venue, category, status, organiser, stages), so an agent knows what data comes back. However, the verb is only implied via the tool name, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_event (single-record fetch), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_event, and no statement of prerequisites. The phrase 'filtered with the documented parameters' is circular and tells the agent nothing it cannot already see in the schema.

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