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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description contributes one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: results are returned newest first. It says nothing about pagination behavior or the cost/volume of a full listing, which is the remaining gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, gives concrete examples, and ends with the ordering guarantee. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing is padded.

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-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers the essentials. What it lacks is disambiguation from list-workspace-events and create-workspace-event, which is the main thing an agent must resolve before choosing this tool.

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%, so every parameter (page, type, limit, scope, include_data) is already documented with examples and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., combining type with scope), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 workspace events") and illustrates the event types covered, so the agent knows what data comes back. The ordering note ("newest first") further pins down the result. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling list-workspace-events, so the purpose is clear in isolation but not in context.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of when to call list-events versus list-workspace-events, get-event, or send-event. The only implied guidance is the enumeration of event categories, which hints at content but not at selection criteria.

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