get_agent_events

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it is a polling interface rather than a real-time stream, it is tenant-bound, it requires the owning authenticated session credential set, and no mock/preview path exists. Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent safety, so this supplementary disclosure is a meaningful increment; pagination and event volume behavior remain unexplained.

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?

Two sentences, no filler prose, but the first 40% of the text is bracketed internal metadata (tier, mock_supported, API paths, authority) placed ahead of the actual purpose, so the functional statement is back-loaded. The metadata is relevant but not front-loaded as 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 poll with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (recent event records) and the key credential constraint. Remaining gaps — result shape, time window, volume limits — are modest given there is no output schema to lean on. Mixed by the silently optional-looking required credentials.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it names all three parameters (sessionId, agentAddress, sessionToken) and indicates they must come from the owning authenticated session, which is useful relational context. It does not explain formats, token constraints, or whether all three are mandatory (schema declares zero required), leaving the invocation ambiguous.

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 ("Poll Pioneer+ tenant-bound agent events") and adds scope ("returns recent event records, not a public real-time stream"). It differentiates the tool's shape from a streaming sibling conceptually, but never names which sibling to use instead (get_agent_activity, get_event_stream_snapshot).

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?

Implies usage conditions — "tenant-bound", "using the owning authenticated session", "no Scout or mock preview" — so an agent can infer prerequisites. However there is no explicit when-not or named alternative among the many similar event/activity siblings (get_agent_activity, get_event_stream_snapshot, get_agent_performance).

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