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

The description adds behavioral nuance beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the `kind` field: it is the organizer's own word, may be absent, and should never be guessed. This helps the agent interpret results correctly. It does not mention potential pagination or rate limits, but with zero parameters and a read-only list, this is a minor gap.

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?

The entire description is one well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, lists the key fields, and then adds the critical caveat about `kind`. Every phrase earns its place, and the 'Call this first' instruction is a valuable closing directive.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, the semantics of a tricky field, and how the tool fits into the larger events_ workflow. No output schema exists, so the field list and 'discover ids' note fully cover what an agent needs to call and use this 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?

The tool has no parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description instead clarifies output fields, which is useful. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

The description begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List the Sonar Connections events available through this connector', and enumerates the fields returned. It also differentiates the tool from sibling events_ tools by positioning it as the entry point for discovering event IDs.

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 explicit usage direction: 'Call this first to discover which event ids the other events_ tools accept.' This clearly states when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list conditions for when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to know this is the initial discovery step.

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