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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the operational reality that current connectors lack event adapters and that the call will return a not-available result, which prevents the agent from misreading an empty response as 'no events exist.'

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability before the caveat and the anti-pattern warning. Every sentence carries information, though the webhook sentence is slightly oblique in wording.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description does well to explain the return outcome and the fallback path. However, with zero schema coverage on the sole parameter and no output schema, the undefined 'erp' input is a real completeness gap an agent will hit on first call.

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 single required parameter 'erp' has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema supplies no meaning at all. The description never explains what values 'erp' accepts, whether it is a connector id, a slug, or a display name, nor its 80-character constraint, leaving the agent to guess at input format.

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: 'List verified ERP business events that can start a workflow,' which tells the agent exactly what comes back conceptually. It does not name the adjacent siblings (trigger_list, trigger_options, trigger_set) that an agent would need to distinguish it from, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 a concrete fallback: when no event adapter exists, the tool returns not-available and the agent should 'use a schedule.' It also adds a useful negative rule against inferring event support from a Nango auth webhook. What is missing is routing to the actual alternative sibling tools for triggers.

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