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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read-only call, and the description adds the event categories and timeline format. It does not specify the exact shape of each event or how 'notable' is determined, but for a read-only overview tool this is acceptable context beyond the annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and placed the clarifying event list in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

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-optional-parameter read-only tool with no nested objects or output schema, the description plus schema covers the essential call semantics. A timeline implies chronological ordering, and the days parameter defines the window, so an agent has enough to invoke correctly, though return-field details are absent.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'days' including default and max, and the description's 'Recent' aligns with the trailing-window concept. The description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter, so it stays at baseline.

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 identifies a specific query ('get recent notable business events') and fills in the resource with concrete event categories (spend spikes, rank changes, stockouts, health changes). It is clearly distinct from sibling detail-tool names like get_sales and get_inventory_snapshot, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'notable business events... as a timeline' implies use for a high-level anomaly timeline rather than deep drill-downs, but an agent choosing between this and get_account_health or get_sales gets no direct routing cue.

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