list_event_orchestrations

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination details, behavior with no filters). It is consistent but not additive.

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 short but includes an Args and Returns section that largely duplicate information already in the schema and output schema. It could be more concise by dropping these repetitive sections.

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?

Given the presence of a detailed schema (with sub-field descriptions) and an output schema, the description is adequate but missing some context such as default sorting behavior or pagination defaults. It does not explain what happens if no query_model is provided.

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% at the tool parameter level. The description describes 'query_model' as 'Optional filtering parameters' but does not elaborate on its fields (limit, offset, sort_by) which are documented only in the nested schema. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 specifies the action ('List') and the resource ('event orchestrations'), and mentions optional filtering. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_event_orchestration' which is for a single item.

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 for listing with optional filtering but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_event_orchestration' or other list tools. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion scenarios.

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