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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them with real behavioral detail: exclusive boundaries, which cursor field each direction yields, and the explicit precedence rule that before_sequence overrides after_sequence. It stops short of stating the page-size ceiling or end-of-log behavior.

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 dense segments with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information. The semicolon-chained construction is slightly run-on, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value context. It helpfully names next_after_sequence and next_before_sequence, but never explains what those cursors contain, when they are absent at the log's end, or how the returned event objects are shaped — a notable gap for a paginated list 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by adding the precedence rule between after_sequence and before_sequence, which the schema does not state, plus the direction each boundary implies. It adds no detail for limit, orgID, agentID, or projectID beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Returns one page of agent events') and adds the ordering guarantee ('chronological within the page'), which an agent can act on immediately. It does not distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as agents_interactions_list or agents_get, 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?

It clearly explains how to drive forward vs backward pagination and which parameter wins on conflict, which is genuine invocation guidance. But it never says when to choose this tool over a sibling (e.g. interactions vs events), so usage against alternatives is only implied.

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