List what happened to each event sent to ad networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context on top: newest-first ordering, the full delivery state lifecycle including a transient 'held' state with an expected release time, representative suppression reasons (consent_suppressed, destination_event_too_old), and the auth scope required. That is exactly the extra behavior an agent needs beyond the safety hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape and grain, then the diagnostic use case and auth note in two short sentences. Slightly dense, and the enumerated state list partially duplicates the state enum already in the schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values and it does so concretely (state, reason, attempts, last HTTP status, held-release time). Combined with 100% schema coverage on 10 parameters, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is already documented in the schema, including cursor paging, limit bounds and the state enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no interaction between from/to, no default for network), so the baseline of 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?

States a precise verb and resource ('return one row per delivery of an event to a network connection') plus the row grain, ordering and returned fields. An agent can distinguish this per-delivery view from aggregate/feed siblings like list_recent_events or export_events without opening the 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?

Explicitly frames the use case: 'Use it to answer why an event did not reach Meta, TikTok or Google', and adds a scope prerequisite ('Read scope is enough'). It does not name the competing sibling tools (list_recent_events, export_events) or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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