cyberqp_get_events

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful security-relevant trait: 'Never returns account passwords or OTP codes.' But it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, ordering, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and capabilities, and the second provides a concise, relevant safety caveat.

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?

This is a broad query tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains what the log contains but leaves important operational details unaddressed, such as pagination behavior (page/limit vs cursor), defaults, ordering, and what fields appear in the response. That is a significant gap for selecting and invoking the tool confidently.

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%, and every parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description restates filter categories but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the tenant's event log', and adds concrete examples of the contents (self-serve resets, admin actions). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like cyberqp_get_customer_accounts or cyberqp_get_tenant_company_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 description gives a clear subject area and filterable dimensions, which implies when it would be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The connection to cyberqp_get_event_types only appears inside the schema, not in the description.

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