get_completed_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only lookup, and the tool returns historical rather than active events, but nothing is said about permissions, pagination, result limits, or time-range defaults. It adds some domain context but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by a compact Args block and examples. The three example prompts are somewhat repetitive for a single-parameter tool, but each maps to a distinct query phrasing and aids routing.

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 need no explanation. For a one-optional-param read tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage examples; the main omissions are sibling differentiation and pagination/scope behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it marks 'service' as optional, explains it filters by AWS service name, and adds that matching is case insensitive. This is genuinely more than the schema provides, though it omits format examples.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (completed/closed health events), and the 'completed/closed' qualifier clarifies the state filter. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_service_events or get_org_health_events, leaving the agent to infer that those cover other states or scopes.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternative is named. The three example prompts do imply the intended scenario (resolved/historical incidents), which lifts it above a bare 'no guidance' score.

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