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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: profile aliases are resolved so merged anonymous events appear, and ingest-tagged bot traffic is dropped unless include_bots is true — non-obvious filtering semantics an agent cannot get from 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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries distinct information (scope, alias resolution, bot handling); it could be tightened only marginally.

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 output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. But for a 9-parameter tool with nested filter structures and near-zero schema coverage, the description omits how the two filter surfaces differ and what the time-range or session parameters constrain, leaving real gaps.

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 only 11% (essentially just project_id), and 9 parameters include nested filter objects with large operator enums. The description explains include_bots precisely and implies pagination via page_size/page_token, but leaves time_range, distinct_id, session_id, events[].kind, and property_filters entirely undifferentiated — a significant compensation gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: a paginated, filterable list of events scoped to a user profile. That is clear, but it never distinguishes this from siblings that also surface events (explore_events, get_profile_sessions, query_insights), so an agent can't route on the description alone.

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?

The phrase 'for a user profile' implies the per-profile scope in which this tool is appropriate, and the include_bots sentence implies a default-exclusion behavior an agent may want to override. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so guidance is only implied.

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