x_api_get_direct_messages_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses read-only risk, required OAuth scopes and token types, environment-selection behavior involving scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, expected response shape, and common failure conditions. It also adds a safety warning about sensitive data, which is valuable beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections, making it easy to scan. However, the opening lines are redundant: 'Get DM events.' followed by 'Use when: Get DM events.' wastes space. Several sections are concise, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.

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 covering auth, response shape, failures, and example, the description omits the crucial distinction from sibling DM event tools—it never states whether this returns all events, events for a specific conversation, or events for a participant. This ambiguity is a major gap for correct tool selection, and pagination behavior is also not fully specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining auth-related parameters (scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, credentialKey) and the environment-selection rule. It lists types for max_results, pagination_token, and event_types, but does not explain the semantics of event_types or pagination_token, and omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType entirely.

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 simply says 'Get DM events,' which restates the tool name without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like x_api_get_direct_messages_events_by_conversation_id or x_api_get_direct_messages_events_by_participant_id, leaving the exact scope (all events vs. per conversation/participant) unclear.

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?

'Use when: Get DM events' is tautological and provides no actionable selection criteria. The 'Do not use when' section only mentions preferring x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration and auth/config tools, but offers no guidance on choosing among the multiple DM event tools.

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