get_customer_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only lists event types. It does not mention pagination behavior, default ordering, authentication needs, or what the response contains, which are significant gaps for a data-fetching tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's core function, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal. It fails to explain return values, pagination expectations, or sorting behavior, leaving the agent under-equipped for correct invocation and response interpretation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of extra meaning by enumerating example event types ('page views, product views, searches'), which helps understand the 'query' filter, but it does not substantially augment the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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+resource construction ('Fetch customer events') and clarifies the scope with concrete examples (page views, product views, searches). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_customer or get_audit_events.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description merely states what it does without contextualizing against other event-related or customer-related tools.

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