list_series_events

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

There are no annotations such as readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists occurrences; it does not mention pagination behavior, continuation semantics, ordering, limits, or any side effects. The continuation parameter suggests pagination exists, but the description gives no hint about it.

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, tight sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource clearly, though the low information density is more an under-specification issue than a conciseness defect.

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 tool with no annotations and two parameters, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation, especially regarding continuation/pagination. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but usage context around event_series_id and continuation remains missing.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the raw schema field names. The continuation parameter is especially underspecified, with no explanation of how the token is obtained, passed or used. With zero schema descriptions, the description needed to compensate, but it does not.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource precisely ('individual event occurrences belonging to an event series'), which clearly distinguishes the operation from get_event_series or other event-level tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of the strongest purpose-clarity tier.

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 intended use case is implied: call this when you need individual occurrences of an event series rather than the series metadata itself. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives are provided, and the description does not say when a caller would prefer another tool.

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