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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe read profile, and the description usefully adds sort order (newest first) and environment scoping. It stops short of any behavioral detail beyond that – no note on default page size, rate limits, or what fields come back in each event.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the investigative framing, then the endpoint mapping. No sentence is 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 simple read-only, two-parameter list tool, the description covers what it returns, the ordering, and the scope, with pagination handled by the schema. The only real gap is that no output schema exists and the shape of a returned event is not sketched.

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 both parameters (limit, cursor) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing additional about pagination semantics or cursor behavior.

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 the events) plus scope (in the key's environment) and ordering (newest first), which an agent can act on immediately. It implies an entry-point role but never explicitly names sibling alternatives like inngest_get_event or inngest_list_event_runs, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Events are what start functions, so this is where an investigation begins' gives a clear use context for reaching for this tool first. It never states when not to use it or names the alternative for drilling into a single event or its runs, so no explicit routing is provided.

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