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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description earns credit for disclosing the pagination model ('Returns 10 events per page') and the exact columns per row, which the annotations cannot express. It does not state ordering, total counts, or whether 'first/last seen' is bounded by a time window.

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 sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and its row granularity, the second gives pagination size and the alternative for a related need. No filler or repetition of the title.

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, describing the returned columns is essential and is done well, and pagination size is a valuable addition. The remaining gap is minor but real: no indication of result ordering or how to know when paging is finished.

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 67% with 'page' described only as 'Page number' and workspace_id undocumented. The description's '10 events per page' meaningfully helps interpret the page parameter, but it says nothing about workspace_id or whether page is 1-indexed or has a terminal condition.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists the event schemas seen on a source') and immediately defines the row shape (event type, name, first/last seen, count), which distinguishes it clearly from get_source_event_properties, get_source_event_metrics, and get_source_event_names_similarity.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_source_event_properties when properties/types are needed, which is the main ambiguity for this family of tools. It gives no guidance about when to prefer get_source_event_metrics or how to page through results to completion, so it stops short of full when/what-alternative coverage.

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