list_em_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and compensates well by disclosing the non-obvious default-limit override and the pagination mechanism using _metadata. It leaves the specific pagination style for this endpoint slightly implicit, but the presence of an offset parameter makes it inferable.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination guidance earns its place by addressing a common source of errors. Structure is compact and readable.

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 list endpoint with all-optional parameters, this description covers the essential calling behavior: what it returns in terms of pagination, how to page through results, and what the default limit is. It omits things like authentication or result shape, but those are less critical when the schema and endpoint context are already supplied.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context around the limit parameter by explaining the default override and the rationale for bulk requests, which goes beyond the schema's 'default: 100' statement.

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 concrete action and resource ('List email marketing events') and includes the endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_events, but the 'email marketing events' qualifier narrows it sufficiently.

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 provides useful operational context, such as bulk requests being the common case and how pagination should be handled. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_events or list_em_campaigns, nor does it state when not to use it.

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