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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read operation, so the annotation carries the safety burden. The description adds the useful 'row-level vs aggregate' behavioral framing, but says nothing about pagination behavior or the shape of returned rows.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the key scoping distinction is front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter, all-optional listing tool, the description captures purpose and the crucial semantic distinction from aggregates, while the schema fully covers parameter details. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on returned row shape would have added value, but nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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% and all 8 parameters are documented in the schema (enums, ranges, pagination). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List individual click, lead and sale events') and immediately scopes it against the aggregate alternative ('rather than aggregates'). An agent can distinguish it from dub_get_analytics without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'rather than aggregates — the row-level detail behind the analytics' gives clear context for when this tool is the right choice versus an aggregated analytics call. It does not name dub_get_analytics explicitly or give exclusions, but the contrast is unambiguous.

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