get_event_sequences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output format (ranked preceding actions, includes step_position meaning) and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention whether the tool requires authentication, has rate limits, or if the data is real-time or historical.

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 three sentences long with no redundant content. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences add relevant details efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover the available filters (e.g., filter_os, period) nor the structure of the results beyond ranking. A more complete description would mention filtering options and output format.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning to input parameters. It does, however, explain the output field 'step_position', which is not in the schema, providing minor value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states that the tool finds preceding actions for a target event, with specific verb 'find' and resource 'event sequences'. It mentions showing both pageviews and events ranked by frequency, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event_counts or get_funnel, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions for not using it. It only explains the meaning of step_position=1, which is a minor usage hint.

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