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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real information beyond them: a hard cap of 100 results, recency ordering ('latest'), and the shape of each event (status, step results, errors). It stops short of stating whether pagination or older history is available.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the result cap and scope, then the payload contents. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, this covers what the agent needs: scope, cap, and returned fields, with no output schema to explain. The only gaps are pagination/retention behavior and how this differs from the revisions and preview siblings.

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 100% for the single source_id parameter, including its src_... format and origin from list_event_connections, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that events are scoped to one source, adding no new constraint or format detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('the latest 100 events a source received') and even enumerates the payload fields (status, step results, errors). It is clearly distinct from adjacent siblings such as list_event_connections (connections, not events) and list_event_connection_revisions, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect recent delivery activity for a given source. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to preview_event_connection or list_event_connection_revisions as alternatives for other inspection needs.

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