Query temporal patterns (event sequence, not motif analysis)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns raw events ordered chronologically, includes joined fields, and does not analyze sequences. This is valuable behavioral context, though it omits details like pagination or response size.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and adds a clarifying example and explicit non-capabilities. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the input parameters are not well documented. The description gives the tool's purpose and example usage but omits practical parameter details (formats, allowed values), leaving a notable gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It mentions 'time window' (mapping loosely to since/until) but does not explain limit, event_types, date formats, or filtering semantics beyond that. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 the tool returns events in a time window with specific fields (classification, firing policy, IPs) in chronological order. The title and description explicitly differentiate this from motif analysis, making the purpose unambiguous even among siblings.

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 explains the intended use case ('The AI uses this raw sequence to detect patterns') and provides a concrete pattern example. It also states what the server does NOT do (no motif detection, scoring, labeling), which helps set expectations, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like query_events.

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