Top events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that results are 'ordered by volume,' but does not disclose pagination, the fixed/default time window implied by 'across a period', or result cardinality. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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?

Four labeled sections (Purpose, Not for, Returns, Use when) are tightly written and front-loaded, with each sentence earning its place and zero filler.

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 simple read-only ranking tool the description covers purpose, routing and return ordering well, but it omits any explanation of the limit parameter and the period over which ranking occurs, both of which an agent needs to call it correctly. Since no output schema exists, the return description carries more weight but remains thin.

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 single parameter (limit) has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. Worse, the description references 'across a period' while the schema exposes no time-range parameter, leaving the period semantics unexplained. With low coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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 with scope: 'Rank tracked events by how often they fired across a period.' It explicitly names siblings it is NOT for (plunk_get_event_stats, plunk_list_event_names), so an agent can distinguish it from the large set of event-related tools without opening any schema.

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 both a 'Not for' exclusion naming the two closest alternatives and a 'Use when' clause giving concrete scenarios ('what your contacts actually do most', 'which events are worth building a workflow around'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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