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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that events are 'server-observed' (authoritative, not client-reported) and 'bounded', which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or result bounds beyond the word 'bounded'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; scope and subject come first. It is perhaps too terse given the undocumented parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 0% schema description coverage on both parameters the description leaves an agent guessing about limit semantics and campaignId format. For a read tool this simple, one clause about limit/paging would have made it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, yet it only implies that a campaign identifier is needed via 'for an authorized campaign'. It never mentions the 'limit' parameter, its default of 50, or its cap of 100, nor the required UUID format of campaignId.

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 ('Read') plus a precise resource ('server-observed session and media request audit events') scoped to a campaign. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling config/list tools such as embed_config_get or campaign_analytics_get, though the phrasing 'embed events' vs. audit events is slightly indirect.

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 words 'bounded' and 'authorized campaign' imply the read is limited to a campaign the caller may access, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative tool for broader or different event queries.

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