get_capacity_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no ordering of results, no statement of what 'history' means in scope. With annotations doing all the work, the description contributes no extra behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity border on under-specification for a tool with a required parameter and several filters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing for correct invocation: that 'role' is required, how far back history goes, and whether results are ordered or capped at the default limit.

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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0% for the top-level params wrapper, the description should carry the burden but only offers 'optional filters'. It says nothing about the required 'role' argument, the limit default of 50, the date format of 'since', or the enum values for event_type.

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 gives a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('capacity event history'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling record_capacity_event. However, it never names that write-side sibling or contrasts read vs. write, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'with optional filters' hints at how to narrow results but gives no when-to-use condition, no exclusion, and no pointer to the read_capacity sibling that an agent might otherwise confuse this with. The agent gets no routing guidance.

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