get_cohost_requested_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the events are 'awaiting your cohost response,' which clarifies the state of the returned data beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is complete. It states the return type and scope, and the output schema handles return structure details.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'fields' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('events') with a clear scope ('where you've been asked to cohost'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_my_events or get_pending_cohost_request_for_event. It explicitly mentions returning a list of event objects awaiting response.

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 clearly implies the use case: listing events for which the user has a pending cohost response. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over similar ones.

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