list_dataset_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination mechanics (limit/offset with defaults) and the v1-only scope, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. But it says nothing about permissions, whether the operation is read-only (only implied by 'Lists'), rate limits, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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 statement is front-loaded and useful, but the rest is a docstring Args dump that repeats schema defaults verbatim. It is serviceable rather than tight; several lines earn little beyond what the schema already shows.

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 4-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, version applicability, pagination, and each filter's meaning. Gaps around filter interaction and auth prerequisites keep it short of full completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: it explains limit/offset as paging, gives a concrete dataset_uri example format (s3://bucket/path) with its v1 restriction, and defines source_dag_id as the producing DAG. It loses a point for restating defaults already present in the schema and not clarifying interaction between filters.

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 leading sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Lists dataset events') plus its use case (data lineage tracking) and a version constraint (v1 only, v2 uses Assets). It separates itself from the singular get_dataset_events and get_dataset_events by naming the list-vs-get shape, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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-only / v2-uses-Assets note tells the agent when this endpoint applies, which is real guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like get_dataset_events, list_datasets, or list_event_logs, nor whether filters are combined or optional.

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