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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, non-destructive read, so the description's added value is the ordering (newest first), cursor-based pagination, default people-only behavior, and the Free-plan error contract with its upgrade link. That is meaningful operational context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't state rate limits or exact page sizes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and the ordering, then pagination, then the plan constraint. No filler; each clause carries information, though the returned-field enumeration is slightly list-like prose.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (time, country, city, OS, device, referrer, unique), states ordering and pagination, and flags the plan-gated failure mode. A few gaps remain — no page-size or date-window semantics tied to days/limit — but for a read-only list tool this is close to complete.

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 only 17% — only includeBots is documented in the schema, and even its default (people only) is echoed by the description. The description partially compensates: 'cursor-paginated' explains cursor and it names workspace/company/QR scoping, which maps to companyId/qrId. But days, limit bounds, and cursor format carry no meaning from either source, so it does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 (raw scan events) and scope (workspace, company, or QR), with the notable qualifier 'raw' that implicitly separates it from an aggregated analytics tool. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not name its closest sibling (analytics_get) explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 description gives a real availability condition — plans without scan insights (Free) get an upgrade_required error with an upgrade link — which is useful routing context. However, it never says when to choose this over analytics_get or how to combine the workspace/company/QR scopes; usage is inferable rather than stated.

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