list_life_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it retrieves a list, revealing nothing about output format, pagination behavior beyond what schema implies, potential error cases, permission requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, more transparency (e.g., result ordering, default behavior) is warranted.

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 a single concise sentence with zero waste. However, it is under-specified for a 6-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema. The conciseness is good, but it doesn't carry enough informational value to warrant higher than a 3; it's minimal rather than appropriately compact.

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?

This is a 6-parameter list-fetching tool with no annotations and no output schema. For a pagination-capable list operation (limit, offset, order_by, filter, profile_id), the description should explain what the list contains, default behaviors, or any call-order prerequisites. The single sentence leaves the tool's behavior largely inferred from schema fields rather than explicitly documented. Moderate complexity warrants more completeness.

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% (all 6 parameters are documented in the schema). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The profile_id parameter's description in the schema already explains the account-scoped vs profile-scoped key nuance. Per the baseline rule (schema coverage >80%), a 3 is appropriate.

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 'ライフイベント一覧を取得' (Retrieve life events list) clearly indicates the verb (get/list) and resource (life events). However, it's a single short sentence with no contrast against siblings like list_career_entries, list_episodes, etc. Since this is a list operation among many list_X tools, the purpose is clear but lacks any differentiation or scoping detail beyond the name itself.

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 guidance about when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools include get_life_event (singular), list_relationships, list_profiles, etc., but the description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information. However, the parameter profile_id does mention account-scoped vs profile-scoped key behaviors, which provides indirect usage context. Still, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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