List Check-In Events

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds minimal value beyond this by specifying the return format options and error behavior, but doesn't disclose important operational details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'enable settings' specifically means.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, returns, and errors. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the 'Args' section could be more concise since it largely duplicates schema information.

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 rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency) and complete parameter documentation in the schema, the description provides adequate context for a listing operation. However, without an output schema, the description should more clearly explain the structure of returned events (beyond just 'name, frequency, and enable settings') and what 'enable settings' specifically entails.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters with their constraints, defaults, and purposes. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats what's in the schema without adding meaningful semantic context beyond what's already structured.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('events (attendance tracking sessions) in Planning Center Check-Ins'), providing specific functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pco_list_checkins' or 'pco_list_event_instances', which might have overlapping domains in the same system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling list tools in the Planning Center ecosystem (e.g., pco_list_checkins, pco_list_event_instances), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over other listing tools.

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