List Events

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the multi-platform scope and does not reveal behaviors like pagination defaults, per-platform parameter applicability, or whether results are aggregated across sources. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It could still carry a bit more useful context without becoming verbose, but as written it is concise and direct.

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 listing tool, the description is minimally viable, especially with strong schema coverage and annotations. However, it does not mention important nuances like defaulting to Luma, per-platform required parameters, or how it differs from search_events, so the complete calling picture is left mostly to the schema.

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 86%, and parameter descriptions in the schema already explain platform, city, limit, offset, search, event_type, and include_past. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a clear action ('List events') and specifies the target resources (Luma, Posh, Partiful), which differentiates it from singular tools like get_event and get_event_guests. It does not explicitly distinguish it from search_events, but the platform-specific list framing is reasonably specific.

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 given about when to use list_events versus alternatives like search_events or get_event. The description also omits practical context such as city being required for Luma and Posh but optional for Partiful, or that this tool surfaces broad lists rather than targeted searches.

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