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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest first and include name and page path. It does not mention pagination via cursor, the default 30-day window, or the site defaulting behavior, leaving those to the schema.

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?

Two compact sentences; the resource and ordering constraint come first, then the filter, then the intended use. Nothing is redundant with the schema and no sentence is 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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and 83% parameter documentation, the description only needs to supply orientation and it does. The one gap is that it does not flag pagination or the default window, but those are adequately covered in the schema.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by clarifying that event_name is an exact-match filter rather than a search — a parameter that has no description in the schema at all. The remaining params (start, end, limit, cursor, site) are documented in the schema itself.

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 resource (tracked events for a site), the ordering (newest first), the returned fields (name and page path), and the filter (exact event name). This clearly separates it from adjacent siblings such as onelence_list_conversions or onelence_verify_tracking, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

The phrase "Useful to confirm a custom event fires" gives one concrete use case, which implies when to reach for it. However, it gives no when-not guidance and does not name alternatives like onelence_verify_tracking, onelence_send_test_event, or onelence_list_conversions, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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