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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through 'browse' and 'shows,' but it does not explicitly state side effects, authorization needs, or return structure. It adds moderate context about the chronological and unified nature of the feed, but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, then elaborates with concrete event types and a practical usage note. Every sentence adds value, and it remains succinct without redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional params, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides a solid orientation: it names the feed scope, typical event types, and the filtering capability. It doesn't explain pagination behavior or return format, but the schema covers pagination, and this is a simple browsing tool suited for initial orientation.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including the filter values and default/max constraints (100% coverage). The description merely mentions 'filtering by event type' without adding semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 tool browses a chronological governance feed, a unified stream across all UAW entities, and lists specific event categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_grievances or get_proposals, which fetch specific entity types.

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?

It explains when to use this tool—for a quick orientation and browsing recent governance activity—and mentions filtering by event type. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear and helpful for an agent choosing among sibling tools.

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