page_past_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination behavior ('Use cursor to get next page of results'), which is useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'past' means temporally (e.g., date range). The description adds some value but is incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral detail (pagination). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving paginated historical data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and pagination but misses details like return format, error cases, or temporal scope. For a tool with zero structured support, it should do more to compensate, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed in the description. The description appropriately avoids repeating schema details and instead focuses on operational context (pagination). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it adds meaningful semantics without redundancy.

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's purpose: 'Get all past events created by page' specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('past events'), and scope ('created by page'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'page_events' (likely current/future events) and 'search_events' (broader search), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'events_details_by_id'), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 usage context through 'past events' and pagination with 'Use cursor to get next page of results,' suggesting it's for historical data retrieval in batches. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'page_events' or 'search_events,' and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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