get_event_logs

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled to 30 per 10 seconds and retried on 429/5xx, non-2xx responses surface as tool errors with status and API error payloads, and multiple query params are combined with AND. No contradiction with 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 well-organized with clear sections and front-loaded with the read-only GET nature. Minor redundancy exists: read-only is emphasized in the emoji, the Behavior section, and the Use-when section, and pagination is mentioned twice. Still, each section earns its place.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, error semantics, rate limiting, auth handling, pagination, filtering behavior, and use cases. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 every parameter. The description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics: all provided filters apply via AND, results are paged at 50 per page, and the page parameter should be used to walk pages. This goes beyond the schema without duplicating it.

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 tool gets event logs and returns a paginated list of all event logs for the school. It is distinct in resource and behavior, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_school_events, so it falls short of a perfect distinction score.

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 provides explicit guidance: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting, and not for changing anything. However, the alternative is only a generic 'matching write tool' rather than a named sibling tool, so the when-not guidance is clear but the alternative is underspecified.

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