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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the tool is deterministic post-processing over caller-supplied data, and it costs 5 prepaid credits with production billing required. It stops short of describing the return shape or how missing timestamps are signaled.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action before the billing caveat. Efficient, though the all-caps billing line is slightly abrupt and could be folded more smoothly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it only gestures at them ('identify missing timestamps') without stating the response structure. Combined with the unspecified event record shape, the agent has to guess at both input and output formats.

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 single parameter 'events' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never states what each event object must contain (e.g., the required timestamp field name) or whether events are mutated or copied.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Sort supplied incident events by time') plus a secondary capability ('identify missing timestamps'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling privi_pro_event_order_integrity, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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?

'Supplied incident events' only weakly implies that the caller must already hold the event data, and there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the event-ordering or duplicate-detection siblings. No preconditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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