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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'list' wording is consistent with that. The description adds only the 'tracked' scope and does not mention return shape, ordering, pagination, or other runtime behavior. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 phrase with no filler words. The operation is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The schema covers parameters well and the read-only annotation covers safety, but the description is minimal. It does not define what a 'priced event' is, does not describe return values, and does not help an agent choose this over sibling event-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all six optional parameters documented, including defaults, enums, and the universe/universeFilter alias. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the operation ('Lista' = list) and the resource ('śledzonych zdarzeń wycenionych' = tracked priced events). It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like get_evaluation_outcomes or get_report_event.

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 about when to use this tool versus related event tools such as track_priced_event, resolve_priced_event_now, or get_event_risks. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are provided, so the usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and sibling list.

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