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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: default date range, newest-first ordering, inclusion of every status, returned fields, and cursor-based pagination. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are less critical given the annotations.

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 description is two dense but well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and default behavior. Every clause adds useful information about scope, return fields, filters, or pagination, with no wasted wording.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: default date range, ordering, returned fields, filter categories, and pagination. It is slightly incomplete because it does not route the agent away from sibling event-query tools when another is more appropriate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 17 parameters thoroughly. The description names several filters and mentions paging, but it largely restates schema content and does not cover all parameters, such as limit, cursor, container_id, server_name, or pageLocation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the events,' and states the date-range scope, default last 7 days, newest-first ordering, every status, and returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_events, query_events, or get_event.

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 implies usage through its filter list and pagination notes, making it clear this is for searching events with criteria. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_events, query_events, or get_event, nor does it state when not to use it. The reference to search_sessions filters is useful but not a full usage guideline.

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