humanitix_list_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that results are trimmed by default, that raw=true returns the full payload, that results are paginated and capped at max_items (default 500), and that the tool is scoped to the configured API key. It omits rate limits, error behavior, and auth failure modes, so it is strong but not complete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose then defaults then filters, and each sentence carries information. There is mild redundancy with the schema descriptions (raw, since, max_items, in_future_only all restated), which keeps it from a 5.

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 and no annotations exist, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, which it does by explaining trimmed summaries vs. raw payload and the pagination cap. Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only error/edge behavior is missing.

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 every parameter (raw, since, max_items, page_size, in_future_only, override_location) is already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description restates raw, max_items, in_future_only, and since with no syntax or behavior beyond the schema, and never mentions page_size or override_location at all.

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 ('List Humanitix events') and scopes it to 'accessible to the configured API key', which distinguishes it from humanitix_get_event (singular fetch). It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like humanitix_list_event_dates, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives conditional guidance for parameters ('Use in_future_only=true to retrieve only future events, or provide an ISO 8601 datetime via since'), which implies when each filter applies. However, it never says when to use this tool versus humanitix_get_event or humanitix_list_event_dates, nor any prerequisites beyond the implicit API key.

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