eventbroker_get_all_event_topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the paging mention and repeats the HTTP route already present in the annotation title, disclosing no return format, pagination limits, or permission requirements.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the operation, but the opening sentence is restated almost verbatim in the second sentence, wasting one of only three lines.

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 read-only paged list tool with no output schema, the annotations and schema carry most of the burden, but the description never indicates what an 'Event Topic' contains or the shape of a page of results. Sufficient to invoke, thin on what to expect back.

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 page, size, and sort all documented in the schema including the sort format. The description's phrase 'specified paging parameters' adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get all Event Topics') and implies full-collection listing, which implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling eventbroker_get_event_topic. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative naming. The only usage hint is 'with specified paging parameters,' which describes a mechanism, not a selection criterion; an agent must infer that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to eventbroker_get_event_topic.

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