Group events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint (GET /api/group/{id}/events) and the filter scope but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or result shape beyond what the schema already implies. It meets the minimum for an annotated read-only tool but adds only moderate 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists filters, with no redundant phrasing. It is efficient, though the clause 'with the same filters as get_property_events plus the group-only ones' is somewhat compressed and could be clearer if split.

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 16 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It does not explain pagination behavior (e.g., next_page usage), does not describe the response structure, and does not clarify how the group-only filters (only active roles, one property, one role, drafts) map to the parameter names. The schema covers many of these details, but the description itself leaves gaps for an agent trying to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters in detail, including date semantics, pagination, and filter meanings. The description only mentions filters abstractly and does not explain any parameter syntax, defaults, or interactions beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, the description contributes nothing new to parameter understanding; a baseline of 3 would be too generous given the lack of added meaning.

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 returns a timeline of events for a single group (household or company), listing concrete event types (viewings, offers, notes, appointments). It distinguishes itself from get_property_events by explicitly noting group-only filters. It falls short of a 5 only because the relationship between group_id and the returned data is not elaborated beyond 'timeline of one group.'

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 explicitly references get_property_events as the parallel tool and delineates the group-only filters (active roles, one property, one role, drafts), which helps an agent choose between the two. It does not state when NOT to use this tool or cover other alternatives like get_group, but the sibling routing is clear.

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