list_report_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds two non-obvious behavioral facts: results are paginated at 20 items per page, and the reported headcount is the sample size, not the registration/entry count — a semantic caveat an agent could easily misread from raw data.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads what is returned and appends the pagination and count caveat without filler. It is dense but every clause carries information; only the abrupt delimiter between clauses slightly hurts readability.

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 and 0% schema description coverage on four parameters, the description should carry more weight. It conveys result fields and pagination but says nothing about how release_id/dataset_revision affect the listing, what a page beyond the range returns, or error behavior for an invalid report_id.

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 0% and there are four parameters, yet the description never explains page, report_id, release_id, or dataset_revision (including what the latter two default to or how they scope the listing). Only the implicit page-size behavior is conveyed, leaving most parameter meaning to be guessed from names and regex patterns.

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 a concrete verb and resource — retrieving the events (赛事) contained in a report — and adds the fields surfaced (sample sizes, dates, locations) plus the 20-per-page behavior. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_report or list_reports, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no conditions under which to pick this over get_report/list_reports, and no explanation of when release_id or dataset_revision should be supplied. The usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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