list_events

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

The description states it is read-only and does not mutate data, which matches the readOnlyHint annotation, but it adds value by enumerating error conditions (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits). This goes beyond the annotation but does not describe return format, which is less critical.

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 concise, with the purpose stated upfront. It includes necessary usage guidance but also contains a somewhat generic identifier instruction that may not be essential. Overall, it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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 list operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers usage, error behavior, and parameter handling, though it could benefit from explicitly stating the return format (e.g., an array of events). The combination of schema and description provides enough context for an agent.

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 already covers all parameters with detailed descriptions and enums (100% coverage). The description adds a generic note about providing project_id or group_id as numeric IDs or URL-encoded paths, but these parameters are not present in the schema, making the note potentially confusing. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 lists events for the authenticated user with before/after date filters. It distinguishes itself by specifying it handles a collection of resources, contrasting with the corresponding get tool for a single resource. This makes the purpose 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 explicitly says to use this for a collection of resources and to choose the get tool when a single resource is known. It also provides guidance on providing project or group IDs and pagination fields, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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