query_events

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, any side effects, or rate limits. The only extra context is the plan restriction, which does not explain behavioral traits.

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 extremely brief, consisting of two fragments. While it has no wasted words, it is under-specified. This is not conciseness but rather a failure to provide necessary information, similar to the 'process' example.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an open parameter schema, the description is severely inadequate. A raw analytics query tool likely has complex filtering and output behavior, but none of that is described. The tool is not usable by an AI agent with this level of detail.

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 schema defines zero properties but has additionalProperties: true, allowing arbitrary parameters without documentation. The description adds no parameter information, so an agent has no idea what filters or arguments to pass. This is worse than a tool with no parameters, as the open schema implies some expected inputs are omitted.

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 states 'Raw analytics events query' which identifies the action (query) and resource (raw analytics events), and the 'PRO+ plan' note adds a constraint. However, it is terse and not a complete sentence, leaving ambiguity about what 'raw analytics events' means and what the query returns. It does differentiate somewhat from siblings like get_analytics by emphasizing 'raw', but not enough to be fully clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'PRO+ plan', which is an access requirement, not a usage directive. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection is given.

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