ls_sink_events_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds value by disclosing the authentication requirement and the checkpointing mechanism (`since`), which are behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences that convey the purpose, filtering and checkpointing usage, and authentication requirements. No extraneous information is present; every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should describe the return format or expected fields. It does not, which is a gap. The description covers parameters and authentication well but lacks information about the response structure. For a simple list tool, it is moderately complete.

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%—all three parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The tool description reiterates the use of `since` for checkpointing, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, the description does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the baseline score of 3.

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 it lists webhook events the sink has received, with optional filtering. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'webhook events the sink has received' distinguish it from sibling tools like ls_list_webhooks (which lists webhook definitions) and ls_sink_event_mark_processed (which processes 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: use `since` for checkpointing and optionally filter by type. It also mentions the authentication requirement (LEMONSQUEEZY_SINK_URL and LEMONSQUEEZY_SINK_ADMIN_TOKEN). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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