get_gateway_events

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the read-only nature (a timeline) and lists event types, which helps the agent understand what data to expect. However, it omits details like ordering, pagination, time range, or whether pending events are included. It adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately communicates the core purpose and event types, making it highly efficient.

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 the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what events are returned but lacks details about the response structure, ordering, or edge cases. Without annotations or an output schema, a bit more guidance (e.g., 'returns a list of events, most recent first') would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'subscription_id' parameter beyond its name. It does not provide examples, format, or constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value, failing to compensate for the missing schema details.

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 specific verb ('timeline of gateway responses') and a clear resource ('subscription'), listing distinct event types (approval, refusal, refund, chargeback). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_subscription or list_subscriptions by focusing on event history.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it for event history, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention sibling tools like get_subscription for current status. The agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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