Get event history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds ordering behavior ('newest first') and enumerates event categories, providing useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention pagination, limit behavior, or what happens when no events match.

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, clear sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. No extraneous information. Perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and ordering but lacks parameter explanations and usage context. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with many optional filtering parameters.

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%, meaning the description provides no explanation of any of the 5 parameters (user, limit, since, until, category). The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 verb 'return', the resource 'recorded events', and the ordering 'newest first'. It enumerates the event types (symptoms/medications/meals/activities), distinguishing it from sibling tools like log_event or specific list tools.

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 use for retrieving a chronological feed of all event types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_medications or list_conditions. No when-not or comparative guidance is provided.

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