What happened, across every service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It explains the chronological aggregation and time-window nature, which is helpful. However, it does not mention rate limits, permission requirements, output item shape, or behavior when many events exceed the limit.

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 just two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool does, and the second adds a compelling use case. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a complex aggregator with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the structure of returned timeline items, pagination behavior, or what happens when no sources match, leaving agents to guess about the actual response.

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 33% (only 'sources' has a description), and the description only hints at the time window through 'for the last N minutes.' It does not explain the 'limit' parameter or how to use 'sources' beyond the minimal schema note, leaving two of three parameters under-explained.

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 produces a chronological list of events across many types and services, making its purpose obvious. It differentiates itself from stripe-specific siblings by emphasizing 'every connected service' and enumerating diverse event types (deploys, errors, payments, etc.).

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 provides a clear use case: 'the fastest way to answer what changed before things broke.' It gives context for when this tool is appropriate but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a stripe-specific event list would be better.

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