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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: results are oldest-first, dates are rendered in the workspace's time zone, and events around sales are attributed as 'sales without posts.'

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource type and immediately followed by ordering and time-zone facts. The trailing sales-attribution clause is slightly tangential but still earns its place by clarifying what counts as an event.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values. It supplies ordering and time-zone semantics, which is sufficient for a no-argument list tool, though it could say more about the events' identifying fields.

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; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is required.

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 enumerates the resource concretely (launches, press, newsletters, ad pushes, promotions) and scopes it to 'the connected workspace,' making clear this lists marked events. It lacks an explicit verb, but it is readily distinguishable from the sibling mark_event, which creates them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like list_campaigns, refresh_report, or mark_event. The closing sentence about sales attribution is domain context, not a when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule.

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