List events

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

Annotations already signal a read-only, open-world call; the description adds the non-obvious default that archived events are skipped unless include_archived is set. It also clarifies the published/archived status fields returned. This is consistent with the annotations and adds useful behavior beyond them.

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?

Two concise sentences with the main action first and the key filtering caveat second. No filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 low-complexity read-only list with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and returned fields. It does not explain the relationship to list_upcoming_performances, so an agent might not know when this is the right list call.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the schema, with limit range/default and include_archived boolean/default, and schema coverage is 100%. The description's archived-skipped sentence corroborates the include_archived default but adds no new parameter syntax or format.

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 a concrete operation ('List the events') against a specific resource ('this TicketSource account') and enumerates returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list_upcoming_performances, so it stops 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?

There is no statement about when to choose this tool over list_upcoming_performances, get_event, or the other siblings. The 'unless asked for' clause explains the archived filter but not selection criteria. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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