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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: revision ordering, inclusion of deletions, UTC timestamps, the null next_after_revision sentinel, and the first_revision baseline. It does not contradict the annotations; it enriches them.

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 compact and front-loaded; the first line captures the core behavior and the following lines each carry distinct operational facts. The paging sentence is terse but efficient, with no filler.

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 existing output schema and annotations, the description covers ordering, deletions, timestamps, paging sentinel, and baseline behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of read_revision and leaves key, limit, and after_revision parameter semantics to be inferred.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description had to carry the burden of explaining key, limit, after_revision, and through_revision. It explains through_revision and the paging relationship but never defines after_revision's initial meaning (e.g., -1) and never mentions key or limit; it also introduces next_after_revision, which is not an input parameter, creating possible confusion.

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 action and resource: 'Read events and full states in revision order,' and adds distinguishing details like deletions and UTC timestamps. It is clear on its own, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings read or read_revision, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 only usage guidance is about paging mechanics ('Preserve returned through_revision while paging...'), not about when to choose events over read or read_revision. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent is not helped to select among the sibling tools.

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