get_org_account_events

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is minimal but real transparency; however, nothing is said about permissions, scoping limits, or rate behavior.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the Args block largely restates the schema and the two example prompts add bulk without adding decision-relevant information.

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 not be described, and the single required parameter is explained. For a one-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient, missing only explicit scoping/limits context.

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 schema only labels account_id as a bare string, so the description's 'The 12-digit AWS account ID' adds genuine format meaning the schema lacks. Only one parameter exists and it is documented.

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 (health events) scoped to a single AWS account, which separates it from the org-wide siblings like get_org_health_events and get_org_service_health. Sibling differentiation is implied by scope but never made explicit.

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 two example prompts illustrate plausible invocations, so the intended usage is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against the many sibling event tools (get_service_events, get_completed_events, get_org_health_events).

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