List events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, safe, repeatable profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /event/) and field inventory, but the one notable behavioral wrinkle — redaction of emails/phones — is already spelled out in the schema, so the description contributes modest extra context rather than new behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filtering/sorting, then the endpoint. Little waste, though the trailing 'Uses GET /event/' is arguably low-value implementation detail for an agent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned fields carries real weight and mostly compensates. With 7 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the definition is nearly complete; the only gap is routing guidance versus the many list/get 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 description coverage is 100%, and those descriptions are notably detailed (pagination semantics, hasPackage ambiguity, redaction default). The description's filter/sort sentence restates what the schema already documents without adding format, syntax, or interaction details, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Events on this channel (shows, productions, exhibitions)') and enumerates the fields returned (name, description, run time, venue with address, tags, image) plus filtering and sorting capability. It is clearly distinguishable from get_event by the plural/resource-list framing, but it never names a sibling, so it falls short of full sibling 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 says what can be filtered and sorted, which implies when the tool is useful (browsing/filtering events by venue or packages). However it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against list_performances or get_event, and no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage to inference.

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