list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: records are 'retained' (retention-limited), deleted-watch history is absent, and the cursor must be passed back unchanged. Note the description says 'next_cursor' while the schema parameter is 'cursor', a minor naming mismatch worth flagging.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: identity, pagination/availability constraint, and scope exclusion. The most important constraint (what this is not) is front-loaded alongside the purpose.

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?

For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately covers retention, pagination, and scope. It is incomplete on the filtering surface (limit, since, watch_id) that a caller needs to narrow results, which matters given 0% schema description coverage.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only gestures at cursor semantics and says nothing about limit, since, or watch_id filtering. The 'next_cursor' wording also does not match the schema's 'cursor' field, so an agent gets no reliable mapping between the prose and the parameters.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read retained TRON delivery records for your account'), which is clearly distinct from the watch-management siblings like list_watches or prepare_create_watch. The closing clause further pins the domain by ruling out balance/funds-transfer use. It stops short of naming a sibling to route against, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Follow next_cursor unchanged' gives an explicit pagination instruction, and 'deleted-watch history is unavailable' sets a boundary on when this data is usable. 'This is reconciliation data, not a balance or funds-transfer tool' excludes a class of misuse. No alternative tool is named for those other needs, so it is context without explicit routing.

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