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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — the 'newest first' ordering and the shape of each event (type, time, object, actor) — but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the optional filter, then the endpoint — two tight sentences with no padding. The trailing 'GET /events' is mildly redundant but otherwise the text is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully carries the return-value burden by describing the event content. Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering pagination, an agent has enough to call this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all four params including pagination and the related_object pairing rule. The description's 'only the events of one object' restates the filter intent without adding syntax beyond the schema.

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 clear resource (the activity feed of events) and enumerates the event fields, which tells the agent exactly what kind of data comes back. The resource (events) is distinct from the list_customers/list_invoices siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 one usage cue — 'optionally only the events of one object' — which maps to the related_object filter. But it gives no when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance and no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage mostly implied.

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