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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the newest-first ordering and the event-type vocabulary; it says nothing about how far back 'recent' reaches or how the feed behaves while paging.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the ordering constraint appended. No filler.

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 no-required-param listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, event vocabulary and ordering, with pagination handled by the schema. Missing only retention-window context an agent might want before polling.

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 `type` parameter has no schema description and no enum, so the description's examples (message.sent/delivered/failed/received, number.purchased/released, ...) are the main guide to its values. limit and cursor are already documented in the schema, so no further compensation is needed there.

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+resource ('List recent events') and enumerates the event kinds returned plus the ordering. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like wait_for_events or list_audit_logs, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Recent events, newest first' implies polling/review usage, but the description never says when to use this instead of wait_for_events, replay_event, or list_audit_logs, and offers no exclusions.

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