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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds little behavioral context beyond 'recent events.' It does not state ordering, pagination behavior, response format, or what counts as an event, though the read-only safety profile is covered by the annotation. No contradiction exists.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, making it easy to parse. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.

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 3 optional filtering parameters, no output schema, and multiple similarly named feed/event tools, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It does not indicate what an activity event looks like, how results are ordered, or why this feed differs from related tools.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema, including allowed values and defaults. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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, 'Recent events on your account,' names a clear resource (the account activity feed) and implies retrieval, matching the tool name. It is understandable but does not differentiate this feed from nearby siblings such as get_alerts, get_transaction_history, or get_news_history.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than get_alerts, get_news_history, get_transaction_history, or list_webhook_events. The description does not mention filtering, typical use cases, or any exclusion criteria.

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