avanan_query_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns each event's available remediation actions, and the verb 'Query' implies a non-destructive read. However, it says nothing about pagination (scrollId), default time windows, auth/MSP restrictions, or result-volume behavior, which are significant for an 11-parameter query 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the verb and resource ('Query Avanan security events'), the parenthetical lists the event domains, and the second sentence covers filtering capability and return value. Every clause carries information.

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 and no annotations, the description conveys the high-level intent well but omits operational context that an agent would need: pagination behavior, default time frame, the MSP-only scopes caveat, and the shape of the returned remediation actions. With 11 optional parameters, a bit more operational guidance would make the tool self-contained for an agent.

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 mainly re-summarizes filter dimensions already documented per-parameter (type, severity, SaaS, date range, description text) rather than adding new meaning; its only added contribution is that the result set includes available remediation actions.

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 identifies the operation as querying Avanan security events and enumerates the domains (phishing, malware, DLP, anomaly, shadow IT, malicious URL), so an agent understands the resource and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling avanan_get_event, which is the closely related single-event retrieval tool; the distinction is only implied by the filtering language.

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 conveys a clear usage context: query security events using the listed filter dimensions and receive remediation actions for each. But it gives no explicit routing guidance — no 'use avanan_get_event for one event' or 'use avanan_search_emails for email-level search' — so an agent must infer when this tool is preferable to its siblings.

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