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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: synchronous execution, task support forbidden, and the output being internal application state that should not be surfaced as raw JSON. It still omits anything about pagination or result-set size relative to the 'limit' parameter.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the bulk of the text is generic presentation boilerplate ('Never display raw JSON... suggest the next best LeanrIQ action') that applies to any read tool rather than this one. A doubled period after 'authority' also signals unpolished construction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 20 undocumented parameters and 0% schema coverage the agent has no basis for constructing a call. The description never addresses scope, filtering, or the sibling-overlap problem, leaving the definition inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% across 20 parameters, including nested objects like marketContext and marketLanguageProfile, and the description says nothing about any of them. No filter semantics, no explanation of advertiserId vs seatId vs eventId, and no note on how 'limit' behaves.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource ('Read advertiser-scoped World Intelligence V3 events with evidence') and adds a scope qualifier ('no publication authority'). It is clear on its own, but it is essentially a restatement of the title and does not distinguish itself from the singular sibling get_world_research_event or from leanriq_get_world_research_events.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over get_world_research_event, get_world_research_insights, get_world_research_mentions, or the leanriq_ variant. The description only tells the agent how to present results, not when to invoke the tool or what conditions select it.

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