get_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 adds genuine value by disclosing cursor-based pagination, and 'download' hints the operation is a read. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior, rate limits, or data-volume implications, which are useful for a retrieval endpoint.

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 with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the pagination detail. Compact and scannable; a brief sibling mention could be added without bloating it.

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 output schema or annotations, the description should explain the return value in more detail. It covers the pagination cursor but not what the returned event payload contains or how the include_profile flag alters results. Adequate for a moderate-complexity 5-parameter tool, but with clear gaps.

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 all five parameters (to, from, batch_size, event_name, include_profile) are already documented in the input schema. The description's pagination mention adds slight context around batch_size's role in the cursor flow, but doesn't meaningfully go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific action ('Download') on a clear resource ('user events from CleverTap') scoped to a date range. It's unambiguous about what the tool does, but it doesn't differentiate from the similar sibling get_events_page, which is a gap given how close that tool is in purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_events_page for paginated retrieval, get_event_count for counting, or upload_events for writing. An agent gets no decision criteria for choosing among these siblings, so selection is left to inference.

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