veroq_events

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions cost (2 credits) and return structure, but omits details like rate limits, pagination, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 well-structured with sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without 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 no output schema, the description describes the return format in detail. However, it lacks information on ordering, result limits, and authentication. For a tool of this complexity, it is mostly complete but has minor 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds an example but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get notable events detected across intelligence briefs — significant developments, announcements, and inflection points.' It uses specific verb and resource, and the distinction from siblings is evident as it focuses on events rather than raw news or market data.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides clear guidance: 'To discover major events like product launches, policy changes, or market-moving announcements. Filter by type or subject.' It includes an example but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, which keeps it from a 5.

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