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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the auth prerequisite ('Requires a WarStrikes API key with the Events layer') — a genuine gating condition not expressible in annotations. Beyond that it discloses nothing about result shape, aggregation across reports, or pagination depth, so it is useful but thin.

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 compact sentences with no filler. Front-loading the auth requirement is defensible since it can block the call entirely, though it displaces the action statement. Slight structural weakness: the reader must reach the second clause to learn what the tool accepts.

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?

Twelve optional filter parameters and no output schema mean the description should carry more weight than it does — particularly around pagination behavior and what a returned event contains beyond the four named facets. The auth prerequisite and domain-model definition partially compensate, but a complex, fully-optional query tool deserves more than endpoint delegation.

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% across all 12 parameters, with examples, enums and formats already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond pointing at the upstream API specification. Per the rubric, full schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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 defines the resource well ('one occurrence linked to all the reports that describe it, with precision, entities, sectors and impacts'), which is genuinely useful domain framing. However, it never states the action plainly — it only implies filtering via 'Same filters as GET /api/v1/events' and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like search_reports or get_event. An agent gets the object's nature but not a crisp verb-and-scope statement.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With six siblings (get_event, search_reports, search_signals, get_signal, get_daily_briefing, list_regions), the agent is left to infer that this is the bulk/exploratory retrieval path versus get_event's single-record fetch. The only conditional content is an auth prerequisite, not usage selection.

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