adjust list events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the description only needs to add context. It does so by disclosing that results are scoped to one allowlisted app and that three distinct identifier namespaces exist (base slugs, activityMetric IDs, event tokens) whose definitions must not be mixed. It says nothing about pagination or result volume, but with an output schema present that is minor.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the caveats. The middle clauses are dense ('ordinary activity-count metric IDs and app-specific event tokens') but every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the domain context an agent actually needs: what kinds of identifiers come back and which one feeds counts. The only real gap is ordering or result-size expectations, which is modest given the output schema.

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%, with both appToken and search documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the app scoping ('for one allowlisted Adjust app') but never mentions the search filter or how matching behaves. It adds nothing the schema does not already carry for parameters.

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 opens with a concrete verb plus a precise scope: 'Discover native event base slugs, ordinary activity-count metric IDs and app-specific event tokens for one allowlisted Adjust app.' That is far more specific than the name alone, which only says 'list events.' It does not explicitly name a sibling, though the line about the event base slug not being a report metric implicitly routes the agent away from adjust_run_report, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Guidance is present but is about field interpretation rather than tool selection: 'Use activityMetric for counts; the event base slug alone is not a report metric' and 'Keep SKAdNetwork and aggregate revenue definitions separate.' These are genuinely useful caveats about what identifier to carry downstream, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of adjust_run_report or adjust_get_catalog, or of prerequisites such as needing a token from ADJUST_APP_TOKENS first.

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