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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: default ordering (newest first) and cursor-based pagination. It stops short of explaining page-size limits or what happens when a page is truncated, but those are documented in the schema.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, leading with what the tool returns and the default ordering before covering filters and paging. Every clause maps to a real capability.

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 8 parameters fully described in the schema, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it. Minor gaps remain around pagination edge cases and how to obtain list_id, but nothing blocking.

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 description restates the key filters (campaign, date range) and the default sort, but adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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+resource ('The event history of one member') and enumerates the event kinds returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from laposta_get_member or laposta_get_member_history-style siblings, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch one member's events, optionally scoped to a campaign or date range. There is no explicit when-to-use versus laposta_get_member or when-not guidance, and no prerequisites such as needing list_id from laposta_list_lists (that hint lives only in the schema).

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