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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that omitting occurrenceId can mix events across captures — but says nothing about volume, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema documents.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the key parameter caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 read-only paginated list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and the main invocation pitfall. A brief note on result volume or how offset relates to nextOffset would close the last gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by explaining the consequence of occurrenceId ('events are not mixed across captures'), which adds rationale beyond the schema's terse '(recommended)' label. The other parameters (type, limit, offset) get no added semantic detail in the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get session events for a bug') and enumerates the event categories returned (DOM, network, console, clicks, errors), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_bug_occurrences or get_bug_history, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

Gives actionable invocation guidance ('Prefer passing occurrenceId so events are not mixed across captures'), which tells the agent when to use a specific parameter path. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming the sibling to use when you want the list of occurrences rather than raw events.

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