get_events_page

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 labels the operation as 'fetch', implying a read-only, non-mutating action, but it does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), nor does it disclose behavior like invalid cursor handling, rate limits, or return structure beyond 'page of events'. The lack of detail is a gap, but the implied read-only nature is reasonable.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mechanism. There is no wasted text and no redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It mentions the return of 'page of events', which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. However, it could benefit from noting how to determine the end of pagination or error behavior, but these are not critical for a simple pagination tool.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the 'cursor' parameter, describing it as a string from a previous get_events or get_events_page call. The description adds a slight clarification by specifying 'returned by get_events', but this is largely redundant with the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the parameter documentation well; the description adds marginal value.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Fetch the next page of events') and the resource (events) with a distinguishing mechanism (cursor). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'get_events' by indicating this tool fetches subsequent pages using a cursor returned by get_events, which is a distinct 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?

The description clearly communicates when to use this tool: after obtaining a cursor from get_events. It implies that get_events is for the initial page and this tool for subsequent pages, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions. The context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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