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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, non-destructive read, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context that results are scoped to the account and that the ids are the expected input for other calls, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how many names come back, which matters for an account that could have many events.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the primary payload (names plus ids) is front-loaded before the downstream use. It is dense but readable; a slight restructure could have separated what it returns from what the ids are for.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the scope (account), and how the ids are consumed downstream. The only real gap is return-size behavior and how it relates to the near-duplicate list_event_types sibling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline applies, and the description does not waste words inventing parameter 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List the account's event names with the ids"), which tells an agent exactly what is returned. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely-named sibling list_event_types, leaving an agent to guess which one it needs when it is unsure whether it wants event names or event types.

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?

It states a concrete downstream use: the returned ids are meant to be passed as event_name_id when proposing an event report or looking up Event attribute types. That is clear usage context, but there are no explicit exclusions or a direct pointer to the alternative tool for the adjacent task.

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