Event Properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a modest behavioral detail about the return shape, but does not disclose anything like response limits, count semantics, or other operational behavior beyond what the annotations imply.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Get property breakdowns') and states the output. No filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description gives only a minimal return-shape statement and does not clarify whether counts are event counts, unique users, or something else. The 8-parameter schema is covered, but for a read-only analytics tool the description could offer more context on date-range behavior and response semantics.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming the 'eventName' is a custom event, so it stays at the baseline.

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 and resource ('Get property breakdowns') and clarifies the output ('distinct property keys and values with counts'), so an agent knows what the tool returns. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like rybbit_get_event_timeseries or rybbit_get_user_event_breakdown.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving property-level breakdowns for a named custom event, but it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusion criteria. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the resource wording.

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