list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds the required scope (events.read), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination semantics, or what happens when next_page_key is supplied.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the permission requirement. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably terse enough to leave gaps rather than being optimally structured.

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?

With six optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin: it doesn't mention the default two-hour window, page size, or selector syntax, all of which an agent must discover from the schema.

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 coverage is 83% and five of six parameters carry descriptions, including the time formats and the next_page_key caveat. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List events') and enumerates the event kinds covered (deployments, config changes, restarts, anomalies). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_event sibling, though it doesn't say so explicitly.

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 sentence 'Needs events.read' gives a concrete prerequisite for calling it, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus get_event (single event), list_problems, or search_logs, nor any exclusion conditions.

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