event_stream_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by enumerating what is inspected (transport config, gateway, webhook, buffer), but says nothing about freshness of the status, cost, or whether it performs live probes that could be slow.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element named (transport configuration, gateway, webhook, buffer) conveys distinct information about the payload.

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 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient; it lists the returned sections so the agent knows what to expect. A brief note on when this diagnostic is warranted would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the schema is empty and fully documented by its absence. Baseline 4 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 specific verb ('Show') and a concrete resource set: event transport configuration plus gateway, webhook and buffer status. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic/inspection tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent sibling bot_status.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this versus bot_status or poll_events when troubleshooting event delivery, and nothing in the description says which condition selects this tool.

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