Get event activity

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

The description, combined with the readOnlyHint annotation, accurately indicates the tool is a safe read operation. It adds behavioral context by specifying the output is a time series of event counts, which is useful beyond the annotation alone.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a usage guideline. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 that the tool has 6 parameters, all documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. It mentions the output type (time series of event counts) and provides a clear alternative. Minor omission: it doesn't detail the output structure, but the output schema covers that.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds 'bucketed by unit' but this is also present in the schema. Thus, the description provides minimal additional parameter meaning 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 defines the tool as returning a time series of custom-event activity over time, bucketed by a unit. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_metrics(type='event'), which returns a ranked list of event names, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'For a ranked list of event names use get_metrics(type='event').' This provides clear guidance on tool selection based on the desired output format.

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