explore_event_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. The mode descriptions only hint at functionality but do not address behavior beyond parameter requirements.

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 description is extremely concise: one sentence with a semicolon-separated list of modes. The main action is front-loaded ('Drill into custom-event PROPERTIES'), and every word serves a purpose. No unnecessary text.

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 tool with 6 parameters, multiple modes, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers mode options but lacks details on return format, pagination, limits, or prerequisites (e.g., having event data). It is adequate but not fully complete given the complexity.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining mode-dependent parameter requirements (e.g., 'values' mode requires both 'event' and 'propertyName'). It also groups mode options in prose, which is not present in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool drills into custom-event properties, distinguishing from simple counts over time. It lists five modes that specify the type of data returned, giving a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like events_series or metrics.

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 description implies usage via mode descriptions (e.g., use 'values' mode for specific event+property counts), but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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