get_alert_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does useful work: it establishes read-style semantics ('what fired'), the sort order (newest first), and the richness of each record including whether an email was sent. It says nothing about authentication needs, retention window, pagination beyond the implicit limit, or volume behaviour, which leaves real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler, and the most useful information (what the payload contains and how it is ordered) is front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing could be removed without losing substance.

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, so the description need not enumerate return values, and it nonetheless summarises them well. What remains uncovered is the one non-obvious parameter (limit), any indication of event volume or pagination, and why this tool exists alongside list_alerts and create_alert.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does not: neither 'site_id' nor 'limit' is mentioned. 'On the site' hints at site scoping and 'newest first' hints at ordering, but the default of 20, the maximum allowed value, and what happens when more events exist are all undocumented.

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 a concrete resource and scope: the log of alert events that fired on a site, ordered newest first, including rule, triggering value, timestamp and delivery channel. That is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling 'list_alerts', which an agent could reasonably read as also returning alerts.

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 quoted scenario 'did anything happen overnight?' gives a clear situational cue for when to reach for this tool. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the boundary with list_alerts (alert definitions vs. fired events) is left for the agent to infer.

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