List Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned data (event types plus payload schemas and conversion setup) and an output-handling constraint for the agent; only pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose and example front-loaded before the smaller presentation caveat. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return contents (event types, payload schemas, conversion setup), which it does. Pagination and filtering details are adequately covered by the fully documented schema, leaving only a minor gap around result ordering.

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%, so the schema already documents after/before/limit/search fully. The description mentions payload schemas and conversion setup but adds no parameter-level syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (event types the organization tracks) with a concrete example (order.completed) and enumerates what is returned (payload schemas, conversion setup). This cleanly separates it from the sibling get-event, which retrieves a single 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?

The description implies the listing context and gives a presentation rule ('Don't read ids or timestamps back to the user unless they ask'), but it never states when to call this versus get-event or other list-* siblings. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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