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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by listing example event types and the filterable dimensions, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or response details. This is sufficient but not rich behavioral 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 very concise: two short sentences with front-loaded subject and examples, followed by the key filtering capability. Every phrase adds useful information, and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a read-only event listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and main filter capability. However, it does not explain pagination parameters, the meaning of `with` or `order`, or the structure of `filter` JSON beyond general dimensions. It is adequate for initial selection but not fully complete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters. It only clarifies the `filter` parameter as a JSON value filtering by type, entity, and period. The remaining parameters (`page`, `with`, `limit`, `order`, `account`) are undocumented, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 identifies the resource as account events/activities and gives concrete examples (stage changes, creation). It indicates the filtering dimensions (type, entity, period), which helps distinguish it from other kommo_* entities. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', so the operation is implied rather than stated.

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 the tool is used to view account event history and filter it, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling list/get tools. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so the usage context is only implicitly conveyed.

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