misakanet_me_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: read-only, no side effects, no local writes, no auth, proxy with no local fallback, rate-limit behavior, and named error cases (missing_lesson_reference, hosted_endpoint_unavailable). It even warns that an empty events list would be a different, wrong answer — a genuinely useful behavioral caveat.

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?

It is long but front-loaded and clearly sectioned (purpose, params, semantics, returns, errors, side effects, auth, rate limits). A few statements are redundant — the return shape is stated twice and the error cases are restated — which costs it a point against a tighter version.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description specifies the return object shape, the evidence-level enum, error cases, and the absence of a fallback. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100% and the schema already gives examples for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: that lesson_path is normalized to an id 'the same way', that either satisfies the requirement, and that passing neither is refused before any network call, which is not encoded in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Return evidence of a lesson being reused (E4 signals)') and enumerates exactly what the evidence comprises: helpful votes, regression-benchmark citations, cross-node confirmation. It also clarifies its semantic identity versus the historical name, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_lesson or search without opening a schema.

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?

It states the decision context explicitly ('Use to check whether a lesson is proven by real usage, not just self-reported') and names the semantic equivalent sibling ('misakanet_get_my_events'), plus the refusal condition when neither argument is given. When-to-use is unambiguous.

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