Get HitKeep Event Names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the one-site and date-range scoping constraints but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as uniqueness, ordering, or pagination. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this level of added context is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word earns its place, directly stating action, scope, and temporal boundary.

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?

The tool is simple, has a fully documented input schema, and an output schema exists. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and under what constraints, requiring no additional behavioral or return-value explanation.

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 the input schema fully documents site_id, from, and to. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline expectation but does not elevate it.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'List event names tracked for one site in a date range.' It clearly identifies the tool's output (event names), scope (one site), and temporal constraint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hitkeep_get_event_breakdown and hitkeep_get_site_overview.

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 for when to use the tool: to list event names for one site within a date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is concrete enough that an agent can infer its purpose relative to siblings.

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