list_organization_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the status filter values but does not disclose pagination behavior (continuation token), default ordering, whether results are read-only, or any rate-limit or authorization requirements. For a list operation with no annotation safety signals, this is a meaningful gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The status options line is useful and earns its place. It could be slightly more structured by grouping parameter explanations, but it is appropriately sized for a list tool.

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 has 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine valid order_by values, how continuation works, or what the response shape is. The status enumeration is helpful, but the overall context is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains the 'status' parameter values; it does not explain 'order_by' options, the 'continuation' token semantics, or the required 'organization_id' format. The description adds some value for status but leaves three of four parameters semantically unexplained.

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 verb-resource pair ('List events for an organization') and enumerates the status filter values, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_venue_events, list_series_events, and search_events. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource scope is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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 implies usage context: it is the organization-level event listing tool, distinct from venue-level (list_venue_events), series-level (list_series_events), or search-based (search_events) tools. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of pagination or ordering behavior that would help an agent decide between this and search_organization_events_by_date.

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