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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, the 100-row cap, how oversized pages are truncated 'from its oldest end' with next_cursor resuming exactly there, and the untrusted_provider_content contract treating free text as evidence never instructions.

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?

Purpose and sibling distinction are front-loaded, and the length is justified by the untrusted-content and pagination contracts. The long enumeration of event types and the full untrusted_provider_content member list are dense and could be trimmed without losing invocation-critical information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the entire return contract, and it does: the response shape, the per-event projection fields, the note that richer reads exist elsewhere, and the pagination termination signal. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the burden, and it does for two of three parameters: limit's 100 cap and before_cursor's exact resume value. dataset_id is only shown in the example rather than described, so a small gap remains.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope ('the dataset's own durable log, newest first') and enumerates the event types it contains. It explicitly demarcates itself from the closest sibling: 'list_runs says what ran; this says what happened to the dataset, before its first run and after its last.'

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 an explicit contrast rule against list_runs, routes detail-seekers to the correct alternatives (get_my_dataset, list_notes, get_run), and states the continuation procedure: 'complete false means older events remain: call again with before_cursor set to next_cursor.'

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