tp_get_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List events' without explaining return format, pagination, sorting, visibility scope, or authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not elaborated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema covers parameters, but with no output schema the description could usefully mention what is returned or whether the date range is inclusive. It is adequate for a basic list operation but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and already explains both required date parameters and the optional athlete parameter (including the coach-account note). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('events'), and the scope ('date range'), making it distinct from sibling tools like tp_get_next_event and tp_get_focus_event. It is specific and 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 date-range constraint implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as tp_get_next_event or tp_get_availability. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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