Recent risky events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description builds on that by disclosing result ordering, the per-event payload shape, and the privacy property ('End-user identity is never returned') — a behavioral fact an agent would otherwise not know. It omits any note on truncation or how the default risk threshold interacts with the returned set.

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 scope ('one Shield site', 'newest first') is front-loaded and the use-case example plus privacy note are short and purposeful. The enumerated field list makes the opening sentence long and dense, but it substitutes for an absent output schema rather than wasting space.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it adds ordering, scoping, and a privacy guarantee. Combined with a fully documented five-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% with every parameter documented and enums constrained, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces 'at or above a risk score' and 'one Shield site' but adds no format or default details beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Recent events on one Shield site at or above a risk score'), with ordering ('newest first') and the exact fields returned. It distinguishes itself from explain_event by being a scoped list rather than a single-event explanation, though it never names the sibling outright.

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 example question ('what risky traffic hit my signup form this week') gives an agent a concrete trigger for selecting this tool over lookup_ip or verify_session. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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