eventarc_list_events

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses sort order and the composition of the result set plus the per-event match/delivery counts, which goes beyond a bare 'list'. However it omits behavior an agent needs: whether this is strictly read-only, what an empty suite returns, how pagination via cursor behaves, and whether counts reflect per-attempt deliveries.

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 dense sentence with the ordering constraint front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the name. It is efficient, though the parenthetical listing of event sources is slightly crowded for one clause.

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 does the necessary work of explaining what a returned event record contains (source categories plus matched/received/failed counts) and its ordering. The main residual gap is pagination/limit behavior and any permission scope, which for a zero-required-parameter read tool is minor.

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 100%, so all four parameters (q, limit, cursor, channel) are already documented in the schema, including example filter syntax and the default of every channel. The description adds no filtering or pagination semantics beyond that, so the 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?

The description names the resource (Eventarc events received by the suite), the ordering ('newest first'), the event provenance (custom, replays, Firebase services' own) and the payload's distinctive field (per-event function matched/received/failed counts). It is clearly a listing tool and distinguishable from eventarc_get_event and eventarc_replay_event, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'the events the suite received' suggests a browse/history use case, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over eventarc_get_event for a single event or eventarc_publish/replay, and no mention of prerequisites such as which channels are visible.

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