list_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the nature of events ('typed, evidence-backed') but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, response format, or any filtering constraints beyond the schema. This is sparse for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and gives illustrative examples. No wasted words; it communicates efficiently what the tool does.

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?

With 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how to use the cursor/limit for pagination, what the response contains, or any specifics about filtering. The user would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by giving examples of event types ('executive changes, new filings, insider sells') which helps understand the event_type parameter, but it doesn't explain any parameters beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('the events feed'), and further clarifies the domain: typed, evidence-backed SEC business-change events with examples. This distinguishes it from filing search tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like get_event or get_8k_events.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (search_filings, get_8k_events, get_event), the absence of exclusions or alternative recommendations is a clear gap.

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