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

Because there are no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about event categories and naming conventions, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, result ordering, pagination limits, historical coverage, or error cases. This is okay but not completely transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose and examples, then how to find a id, then two explicit exclusions. There is no filler or repetition.

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 a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers what kind of data will be returned, gives market id examples, points to list_markets for valid ids, and warns against confusing the tool with siblings. An agent can invoke this correctly without any additional context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description goes further by showing a realistic market id format and instructions for discovering valid ids. The limit parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable because it is already fully described.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving published risk events for a single lending market, and enumerates what counts as risk events (incidents, bad debt, liquidation cascades). It explicitly differentiates itself from get_market_overview and get_market, so an agent can select the right tool without 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?

Gives explicit usage guidance: use list_markets to find a valid market id, and clarifies what this tool is not for by naming alternatives. This is the kind of direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use routing that lets an agent avoid mistakes.

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