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

Rich disclosure beyond annotations: hard cap abort with structured error at the configured maximum, a fallback that lists available_actions/available_entities when a filter matches nothing, and a deduplicated actors list derived from tags[key=user]. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must anticipate.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then layered operational notes. Dense but nearly every sentence carries actionable content; the parenthetical examples for action/entity are slightly verbose but justified by the filtering gotchas.

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, yet the description still conveys the key return shape (events, count, actors) and the error/fallback paths. For a read-only, 7-param tool with high schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: `type` is ONLY the high-level category and must not receive action/entity names, and `entity` matches the tag VALUE case-insensitively (ci_build, not build). This prevents real misuse errors.

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 (list) and resource (events) with explicit scope: scoped to a project's components, and explains the mechanism (walk project → envs → components, then filter org-wide events by project tag). This clearly distinguishes it from CYCLOID_EVENT_LIST's org-wide listing.

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?

Gives strong when-to-use context: use project scoping, cross-reference actors with CYCLOID_MEMBER_LIST for ids, narrow with begin/end/severity/type/action/entity. It does not explicitly name CYCLOID_EVENT_LIST as the alternative for org-wide queries, leaving that inference to the reader.

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