list_exposure_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does convey that the results are scored alert data and that the tool is used for identification rather than for performing the disabling action, which implies a read-like list operation. It does not explicitly state read-only status, response shape, or pagination behavior, which are notable gaps.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The key data description is front-loaded, and the usage sentence earns its place by telling the agent why to call the tool and what decision it supports.

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?

For a simple list operation with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to select the tool and initiate a call. However, because annotations are absent and there is no output schema, the lack of an explicit statement about read-only behavior and the expected return payload leaves some context unresolved.

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%, so the description needed to compensate for page/per_page semantics, but it contains no mention of pagination or how these parameters affect results. The schema's names, types, defaults, and bounds make the parameters somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('suspicious-sender alerts scored against the user's aliases') and the intended use ('identify risky senders and decide which aliases to disable'), which distinguishes it from the sibling alias, domain, destination, and email tools. However, it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns'—the first sentence is a noun phrase—so it stops just short of the highest tier.

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 gives concrete context for when the tool should be used: to identify risky senders and inform alias-disabling decisions. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it fits 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than the explicit when/when-not tier.

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