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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — cursor-based pagination via next_cursor and the date format — but says nothing about permissions, result volume, ordering, or error behavior for a read tool.

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 tight sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by format and pagination details. Nothing is padded, though cramming three distinct points into one clause chain reduces readability.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description is the only source of context. It covers the id format and paging but omits limit semantics and any hint at the returned event shape or ordering, leaving meaningful gaps for a 3-parameter 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the id format ('US-VA:11406679') and the cursor's paging role, but leaves 'limit' entirely undocumented and references 'dates use YYYY-MM-DD' when no date parameter exists in the schema, which may confuse the parameter mapping.

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 ('Returns events for a business ID') and even gives a concrete ID format example, so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_events, so it falls 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search_events or get_business, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. Pagination is mentioned but that is behavior, not usage selection.

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