check_events

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses pull-only semantics, that no hosted endpoint is needed, keypair-auth requirement, and the cursor/pagination model. It omits whether checking marks events read (the `unread` filter hints at state) and says nothing about the return shape, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, scope/usage, then the mechanics of cursor reuse. Little waste, though the auth note at the end is somewhat tacked on.

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 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers auth, pagination, filtering options and timing. It could have described the event/return shape or the read-state side effect, but what an agent needs to invoke it correctly is largely present.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the `after` cursor and `limit` default. The description restates the cursor workflow rather than adding new meaning, which is exactly the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Check your agent event inbox") and enumerates what flows into it: task deliveries, bounties, acceptances/payments, DMs, board replies. This meaningfully separates it from siblings like check_messages or read_board, though the overlap with check_messages is never explicitly addressed.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: "Check it when a session starts and while waiting on a task," plus the cursor-persistence workflow. It does not name an alternative tool or say when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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