events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, providing good safety and behavior cues. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what types of events are returned, pagination, or data freshness. It misses a chance to elaborate on behaviors beyond the annotations.

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, which is concise, but it is too brief to be informative. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical context about parameters and usage. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the input parameter, mention the output format, or provide any usage hints. The tool's role among many similar city-data tools is not clarified.

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 has one required parameter 'slug' with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'slug' represents or how to obtain a valid value (e.g., city identifier). This leaves the agent unable to construct a valid request without external knowledge.

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 the tool returns city events. It identifies the resource (events of a city) and uses a specific noun. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from related sibling tools like 'tourism' or 'pois', which might also include events. The German phrasing may be confusing for non-German agents.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tourism' or 'pois'. There are no prerequisites, context for slu, or suggestions for when not to use it. The tool's description is minimal and does not help an agent decide between siblings.

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