get_events

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does state the main behavior (returns a list/account timeline) and gives concrete examples of event categories. Still, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, response shape, or any side-effect safety information, so transparency is only partially satisfied.

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 concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core operation and scope, and the second adds a valuable use case with concrete examples, earning its place.

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 description gives enough context to understand what events are and why they matter, but it leaves gaps: no mention of pagination defaults, no output shape, and no routing guidance between get_events, get_event_by_id, and get_event_types. Since there is no output schema, more detail about the returned event list would improve 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context above the schema by framing events around lead history, stage changes, notes, and tasks, which helps an agent understand how filter_type, filter_entity_id, and filter_entity_type would be used together.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it fetches the list of events (history/timeline) for the account. It goes beyond a bare restatement by providing examples of event types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling get_event_by_id or get_event_types, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 the tool is useful for investigating what happened to a lead, including stage changes, notes, and tasks. This gives an agent a reasonable context for when to use it, but it does not state when to prefer alternatives such as get_event_by_id or get_event_types, nor does it mention exclusions.

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