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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the visibility scope ('visible to the current principal'), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, event types, or return format, which would be useful for a list operation.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple read-only list operation with no required parameters and strong annotation coverage, so the description does not need to be long. However, with no output schema and no mention of pagination or what an 'event' contains, an agent may still be uncertain about the response shape and listing semantics.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-specific explanation. The parameter names 'limit', 'starting_after', and 'request_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions or clarify semantics like pagination cursors.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List public Yardstick API events', and adds a scope qualifier ('visible to the current principal'). This is clear and distinct from generic list tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like yardstick_audit_log_list.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yardstick_audit_log_list or other list endpoints. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions entirely to inference.

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