Get System Events

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral nuance: messages are 'official' and 'bounded', the classification is 'deterministic', raw published comments remain authoritative, and no event end is inferred. This communicates data provenance and interpretation caveats that annotations do not capture, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two short sentences, with the primary function in the first and the key caveats in the second. Every clause carries meaningful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool has an output schema, rich annotations, and schema-described start/end parameters. The description adds the missing behavioral guarantees around data authority and event-end inference. Together, these give an agent everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke this tool 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 high for the top-level request parameter, and start/end carry timezone semantics in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema already documents the important interval semantics. Limit and offset have no inline description, but their constraints and defaults are present in the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns bounded official AIES Event Log messages'. It also adds a distinguishing behavior, 'deterministic descriptive classification', which tells an agent exactly what kind of data this tool returns and how it differs from the large set of sibling tools that fetch prices, loads, or generation data.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_market_event or find_price_events. The description does not mention when not to use it, what problems it is best suited for, or which sibling would be more appropriate for related event analysis. An agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and schema.

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