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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Query' which implies read-only. It does not explain pagination, default limits, ordering, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity; while it states the core purpose, it does not earn its place by delivering enough useful information.

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 tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to be complete. It lacks details on filter usage, defaults, and relationship to sibling tools, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke confidently.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on any parameters. The phrase 'with filters' is generic and does not explain that available filters include limit, entity_id, and event_type. No additional meaning is added beyond the minimal parameter names.

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 tool queries event history ('Query event history'), using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'event_stats', which may also query event data, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention event_stats or other event-related tools, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'with filters' implies usage but is vague.

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