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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide: the role prerequisite, the confirm-before-create guardrail, and the instruction not to create events without explicit user request. These traits complement the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) rather than contradict them, since creating is a write but not a destructive 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 four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, role requirement, confirmation guardrail, and explicit-request constraint. The last two sentences are partially redundant ('confirm details' versus 'do not create without explicit user request'), but there is no fluff and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, auth, and invocation safety well. It leaves gaps on sibling differentiation (register_event is an ambiguous competing tool) and parameter semantics given the low schema coverage. It is adequate but not complete for a 9-parameter tool.

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 only 33%, yet the description contributes zero parameter-level guidance. Format-sensitive fields like starts_at and ends_at lack any format hints, and max_capacity has no meaning or unit clarification. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Creates a school event.' This clearly identifies the operation and naturally distinguishes it from update_event and cancel_event among the siblings. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly-named sibling register_event, which could plausibly perform a related creation task.

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 clear usage context: a pac_cordinator or event_cordinator role is required, and the tool should only be invoked on explicit user request after confirming details. It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, such as update_event for modifying existing events.

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