Event statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context in the form of fixed aggregation windows (last hour/day/week, 14-day timeline) and the fact that it returns recent events as well as counts, which tells the agent the output is bounded and time-scoped rather than a full dump. It says nothing about latency, caching or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the framing (dashboard summary) before enumerating the payload. The enumeration is long but each item is a distinct returned metric, so it mostly earns its place; it could be trimmed given an output schema already documents the shape.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, full annotation coverage, output schema present), so the description need not explain return values — yet nearly all of its content restates the payload that the output schema already defines. What is genuinely missing is disambiguation from the many sibling event tools, which is the main decision an agent faces here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure: the windows are fixed at hour/day/week and 14 days. No parameter meaning is missing because there are no parameters.

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 names the resource (events) and specifies exactly what the tool returns: a dashboard-style aggregate summary with totals, time-window counts, top types, recent events and a 14-day timeline. That is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish this aggregate view from siblings such as event_counts or event_map, which an agent may confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives. With event_counts, event_map, search_events and get_event in the sibling list, the description never says when this summary is preferable to a raw count or a search. The agent must infer routing from the field list alone.

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