Review queue, highest risk first

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It specifies the filter and sort, indicating a read-only query. However, it doesn't disclose the effect of the limit parameter (the description says 'every event' but limit can restrict results), and 'Free' is ambiguous. No contradictions with annotations (none present).

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?

One sentence, highly efficient, front-loaded with the core behavior. The final 'Free' note is extraneous but not harmful.

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?

Given the simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose. However, it fails to reconcile 'every event' with the limit parameter, and does not describe the return format or potential pagination. The lack of annotations and output schema places more burden on the description, but it still provides a sufficient overview for a basic list tool.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a description (though minimal: 'Default 50'). The property name is self-explanatory, so baseline 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool's function: returns events with 'review' verdict, sorted by score descending. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_events by specifying the filter and sort order. The title reinforces this.

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 description provides clear context (daily triage job) and implies this is the tool for reviewing high-risk events. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, preventing a 5.

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