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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states that the tool queries records, but gives no information about read-only nature, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. For a query tool, transparency about its scope and output format is critical and missing.

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?

While the single sentence is very concise, it is under-specified. Every word is useful but not earning its place because it fails to provide essential information. True conciseness would pack more meaning into similar length.

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 complexity of 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the returned data, pagination, filtering behavior, or how it compares to sibling tools. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly.

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 add meaning to the 8 parameters, but it adds none. Users cannot infer the purpose of 'run_id', 'status', 'event_type', 'request_hash', etc., from the description. This severely hinders correct usage.

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 action ('Query') and the resource ('canonical mission-event records across persisted Algenta agent runs'). It implies filtering across multiple runs, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_agent_run_events' that likely focus on single runs. However, the term 'canonical' is vague and the description does not explicitly contrast with similar query tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent_run_events', 'query_agent_run_checkpoints', or 'query_agent_run_telemetry'. The description does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or situational suitability.

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