get_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool returns specific fields (date, time, location, description, organizer), which is helpful. However, it omits behavioral details such as whether results are paginated, any authentication requirements, the geographic scope ('local' is ambiguous), or potential limitations on the data. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first defines the action and scope, the second lists return fields. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and output fields. It lacks detail on geographic scope (e.g., 'local' to the user's verified address) and any default behavior, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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% (both limit and days_ahead have descriptions). The description repeats 'upcoming' and 'local' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how the two parameters interact (e.g., whether days_ahead filters events starting within that window, or if limit applies per query). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'upcoming local events from Nextdoor', and lists the returned fields (date, time, location, description, organizer). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_post or get_feed, which serve different purposes.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusionary conditions, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., get_feed) might be more appropriate. The absence of any usage direction leaves the agent to infer solely from the tool name.

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