v1_alerts_get_alerts_multi_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It covers key traits: response concatenation with AND (OR not supported), maximum result set size 100, zero-based offset, PCAP detection in PAN NGFW alerts, required licenses, and the ability to fetch all or filtered results. These details go well beyond a generic 'get' operation, though it does not describe error handling or the full response structure.

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 well-structured with a note, bullet points, example, and license info, but it is somewhat verbose. The legacy note and license requirements add context, yet some statements (e.g., 'Note: You can send a request to retrieve either all or filtered results') are redundant with the example and bullet points. It could be tightened without losing key information.

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 (nested request_data object) and the absence of an output schema, the description explains input constraints thoroughly (AND condition, max size, offset, PCAP, licenses). However, it does not describe the response format or fields returned, which is a notable gap. The legacy designation and pointer to v2 partially mitigate the incompleteness, but for a standalone tool, more detail would be needed.

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 already provides rich descriptions for all parameters (sort, filters, search_from, search_to). The tool description adds value through an example request body and clarifies offset is zero-based, plus the maximum result set. However, it does not systematically explain each parameter, and since schema coverage is listed as 0%, the description only partially compensates by relying on the schema for definitions.

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 'Get a list of alerts with multiple events' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the v2 sibling by explicitly labeling itself as a legacy endpoint and linking to the v2 alternative, removing any ambiguity about version differences.

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 explicitly says 'This endpoint is legacy. Use the Get Alerts Multi-Events v2 endpoint,' providing an explicit alternative. It also gives context on result set limits and offset semantics, guiding when to use this endpoint for filtered/all results. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' beyond the legacy warning but still offers clear direction.

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