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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get the events' without revealing what the return format is, whether it is a read-only operation (though implied), what happens if the element is not found, or any rate limits or permissions. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler, redundant phrases, or restatement of the tool name. Every word adds meaning, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly adequate. It clearly states the tool's purpose and the schema covers the parameter. However, it does not mention the shape of the returned events or any edge-case behavior, and there is no annotation to provide safety context. This leaves minor gaps that prevent a perfect score.

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 schema provides a full description for the only parameter ('The tag name of the element.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the schema; it reinforces that the element is 'specific' but does not introduce constraints, formats, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('events'), scoped to a 'specific EOxElements custom element.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_element_attributes, get_element_methods, and get_element_slots, which cover different aspects of custom elements.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like get_element_details or list_elements. The agent must rely on the name and description alone without further direction.

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