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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true) by using 'retrieve' and 'track' without mentioning side effects. It adds that filters are available, which gives a sense of the tool's behavior. However, it does not describe the response format or any edge cases (e.g., empty results), and relies on the annotations for safety transparency.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It front-loads the primary action and immediately specifies the required context (known event_id). No redundant or vague wording dilutes the message.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides enough context by stating that it returns all developments and helps track the full lifecycle. It does not enumerate response fields, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is acceptable. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the result is a list, but the plural 'developments' already implies that.

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 descriptions for detail, start/end timestamps, and include_future_developments, but event_id and limit lack explicit descriptions. The tool description says 'filters for timestamp and occurrence' which partially covers the timestamp and future-occurrence parameters, but does not clarify event_id or limit semantics. Overall, parameter guidance is adequate but incomplete.

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 purpose: to retrieve all developments for a known event_id. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and identifies the resource ('developments') and the key qualifier (associated with a known event_id), distinguishing it from sibling tools like retrieve_development (singular) and search_developments (search-based).

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you have a known event_id and need its developments. It also mentions that filters for timestamp and occurrence are available, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_developments or retrieve_development, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others.

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