list_events

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

There are no annotations to provide safety or read-only hints, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose that listing is non-destructive, that multiple filters (status, time range, organization) are supported, or that user_uri can target other users; the 'authenticated user' claim is contradicted by the schema's user_uri parameter.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource and earns its place, though it may be slightly too brief.

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 six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It omits key details about filtering options, pagination, and the ability to list for other users via user_uri, which are critical for correct usage.

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% with well-described parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema fully covers parameter meanings including defaults and formats.

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 identifies listing scheduled events as its function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event and list_event_types. However, the scope 'for the authenticated user' is slightly misleading given the optional user_uri parameter allows listing events for other users, so it's not fully precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_event or schedule_event, nor any exclusions for when this tool should not be used. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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