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

The description adds the HTTP method and confirms it's a read operation, but beyond that, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or potential errors. The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, so the description's additional value is limited.

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 very concise (single sentence plus endpoint) with no wasted words. However, it lacks structured presentation (e.g., sections) that could improve scannability.

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 there are 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain pagination (startingAfter, limit), date filters, or the structure of the event log, leaving the agent with many unknowns.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not provide extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., usage tips or format details). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Get) and the resource (event/audit log for an entity). It also provides the HTTP endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mercoa_get_invoice_events. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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