apps_event_authorizations_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' (implying read-only) but does not elaborate on safety, permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient given the absence of 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the essential information without any fluff. Every word is necessary for understanding the tool's function.

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 list tool with a well-documented schema and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention pagination implications briefly, but overall it covers the core purpose.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'authorizations', and it specifies the context 'for the given event context', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from siblings as no other tool targets event authorizations.

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 implies usage when needing authorizations for an event context but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the specificity of the tool, this is minimally adequate.

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