list_key_events

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive read operation, and the description adds useful return-field context such as counting method and deletability. It does not describe pagination, authentication requirements, or any rate limits, so behavioral disclosure remains moderate rather than rich.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose and returned fields first, then the alternative-tool distinction, then the parameter format. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key context: what definitions are returned, what fields each contains, when to prefer the reporting sibling, and how property_id is formatted. Pagination behavior is not mentioned, which is a minor gap for a list operation.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does so by documenting that property_id may be a bare number or a string consisting of 'properties/' followed by a number, which is more concrete than the schema's anyOf.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the key events defined on a property. It also names the sibling tool used for numeric conversion data, making the boundary between definitions and reporting explicit.

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?

It gives direct when-to-use guidance: use this for key event definitions, and use run_conversions_report for key event numbers. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both stated.

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