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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds context about the source of events (webhook provider or direct API integration) and the diagnostic scenarios. It does not disclose any rate limits or pagination, but for a simple read-only feed with annotations, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by specific use cases. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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?

With one boolean parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema available, the description covers the purpose and usage scenarios effectively. It does not mention the output format or limitations, but those are likely handled by the output schema, so the overall context is complete enough.

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 single parameter 'sandbox' is fully described in the schema with its default and behavior. The description itself adds no additional parameter guidance, but with 100% schema coverage, 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 retrieves 'the latest events feed' with specific detail about webhook and API events from Cello, distinguishing it from sibling tools like integration status or metrics. The verb 'retrieve' plus the resource 'events feed' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says 'Use when a user asks if events are being received correctly, why attribution isn't working, or to diagnose missing or malformed payload fields.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the top tier.

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