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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and "same authorization and validation as website, API and CLI" is near-vacuous — it does not specify what permissions are needed, that the operation is read-only, how pagination behaves, or what is returned. The cursor/limit schema hints at pagination but the description never explains it.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: the second sentence conveys almost no actionable information, and the opaque "SAGOT" prefix wastes the highest-value position. Two sentences that carry this little content are not earning their place.

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?

For a paginated list tool with a required UUID scope parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain pagination and what is listed. None of that is present, so an agent lacks what it needs to invoke this correctly.

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?

Three parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them — not the required workspaceId, nor the limit bounds, nor the cursor's role in paging. It neither documents parameters nor compensates for the empty schema, leaving the agent to infer everything.

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?

"SAGOT events.list" largely restates the tool name via a dotted namespace, and "SAGOT" is never defined, so the agent cannot tell what an "event" is or what domain this covers. The only other sentence is about authorization, not purpose, and it does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling events_replay.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus events_replay or the many other *_list siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The authorization sentence is context about how it behaves, not guidance on when to select it.

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