list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List events' and gives examples, with no mention of side effects, access restrictions, or whether it is purely read-only. The transparency is minimal for a listing operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the purpose and provide usage examples. Every word is necessary, and it adheres to front-loading the core function.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about default behavior, pagination (skip/take), date range logic, and how location filtering works. It is too brief for a tool with 5 optional parameters, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 input schema has 5 optional parameters with zero description coverage in the schema. The tool description does not explain what any parameter does (e.g., skip, take, date filtering, location_id). The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a nuanced query.

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 'List events' and gives examples of event types (clinics, lessons, tournaments, round robins, open play), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_courts or list_locations, but the scope is clear.

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 explicitly provides usage examples ('Use when: "what events are happening next month?"...') which guides the agent on suitable queries. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_event for single events, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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