Get Events

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by specifying that only embedded event rows (id, name, start_date_time, url) are returned, and that client-side details are not accessible. This discloses the tool's scope and limitation, which is helpful for an agent.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and includes only relevant details about return format and a key limitation. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what data is returned and its limitation, covering the essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides a full description for the single limit parameter (coverage 100%), and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists upcoming events relevant to the authenticated identity, using a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the data source ('events hub') and the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on posts, groups, or notifications.

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: it lists upcoming events for the authenticated identity. It also includes an important caveat that client-side event details are not available via cookie scraping, which informs when not to rely on this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for obtaining such details, so it falls short of a full usage guideline.

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