get_dataset_events

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile; 'Gets' implies read-only and the pagination defaults are disclosed, which helps. It says nothing about ordering of events, result size behavior, or what happens for an unknown dataset_uri, and an output schema already exists so return values need not be covered.

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 purpose and the critical v1-only caveat are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block with no filler. Slight redundancy in restating schema defaults keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the scope restriction, every parameter, and pagination adequately. The remaining gaps (event ordering, error behavior for missing datasets) are minor rather than blocking.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning — and it delivers, giving a concrete dataset_uri example ('s3://bucket/path'), restating that it is v1-only, and clarifying that limit is per-page while offset is a skip count. Defaults are repeated from the schema but the pagination semantics are real added value.

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+resource ('Gets events for a specific dataset') and adds a version-scoping qualifier (v1 only; v2 uses Assets) that an agent could not infer from the name. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_dataset_events by emphasizing 'a specific dataset', though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 v1-vs-v2 note is a genuinely useful eligibility condition, telling the agent when this tool applies at all. However, there is no explicit routing guidance against the very similar sibling list_dataset_events, so the agent must infer the difference from the 'specific dataset' phrasing alone.

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