get_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description explicitly states 'Read-only' (key safety trait) and adds a behavioral quirk: 'Includes voided rows, flagged.' This goes beyond the name and gives useful transparency, though it does not detail result format or edge cases.

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 sentence with a parenthetical, front-loaded with the key phrase 'Read-only raw event access'. No wasted words; every clause adds information about purpose or behavior.

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 description gives purpose and some behavior but omits any explanation of the item and since parameters, which are critical for effective invocation. An output schema exists for return values, so this is the main gap. The tool is simple enough that with parameter docs it would be complete.

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 input schema has 2 parameters (item, since) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, leaving their meaning and usage entirely unspecified. The agent cannot correctly filter events without additional guessing.

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 'Read-only raw event access', which clearly identifies the tool as providing raw event data for explainability. It also distinguishes from siblings like void_event (write) and get_stock (stock data) by its read-only and event-specific nature.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for raw events when explainability (recomputing estimates) is needed. It implies read-only use cases but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it does not reach a 5.

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