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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context not present in structured fields — the per-call cost of 0.3 points and the provenance of events from primary sources. It omits pagination behaviour despite a cursor parameter, so it stops at minimum-plus.

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 short fragments with no filler, and the core scope (events in a sector from primary sources) is front-loaded before the severity and cost asides. It is efficiently sized, though arguably under-specified rather than tightly concise.

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?

With eight parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description should ideally sketch the returned event shape beyond 'severity 1-4'. The rich schema compensates for much of the gap, but pagination and the relationship to sibling event endpoints remain unexplained.

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 eight parameters, including defaults, ranges and cursor semantics. The description's only contribution is restating the 1-4 severity range, which duplicates min_severity. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear resource (events for a sector) plus distinguishing qualifiers: primary sources and severity 1-4. It stops short of differentiating itself from near-neighbours such as sectors_event, get_pulse_events, and deep_events, so an agent cannot tell from text alone which event endpoint applies. Clear but undifferentiated.

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 statement, no prerequisites (e.g. sector slug must come from list_sectors), and no named alternative among the many sibling event tools. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'events in a sector'.

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