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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint-level filter semantics (filter=COMPANY) and the required/optional parameter constraint, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits despite page/page_size/order being present.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core mechanism front-loaded and no filler. The use-case sentence earns its place by disambiguating the tool's purpose, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

For a read-only list tool with 11 params (82% documented) and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the key required parameters. Pagination is only implied via the schema, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters including date normalization and page semantics. The description adds one useful clarification about from/to being required and id not being needed, but contributes little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Lists), resource (company-level events), and the mechanism (from /events using filter=COMPANY). This implicitly separates it from list_events and list_filtered_events by scoping to company-level, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 a clear use case ('global metrics ... without iterating user-by-user') and states the required-parameter condition ('Requires from/to and does not require id'). It does not name the alternative sibling tools (list_events, list_filtered_events), so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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