Unique-event definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about permissions, what the returned definition contains, or how scope affects results.

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 with no padding or redundancy. The only knock is that it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete declarative statement of what the tool does.

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?

An output schema exists and both parameters are fully described, so return values and inputs need not be explained in the description. What is missing is usage context — when this definition-retrieval tool is the right choice versus the many sibling event tools.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema itself. The phrase 'for one product and scope' loosely echoes agent_kind and machine, adding only a faint conceptual link beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3.

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 a specific concept (the criteria that make two detections the same event) and ties it to product and scope, which lets an agent infer the resource. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never actually states that the tool *returns* the uniqueness definition. Purpose is understandable yet not sharply stated.

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, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to any alternative tool among the many event siblings (search_events, event_stats, event_counts, get_event). The agent must guess the calling context entirely.

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