swissco_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: publications carrying no UID are dropped, and bodies are cached in the state directory keyed by publication id so overlapping calls are cheap. These are real operational traits not derivable from structured fields. It stops short of describing error/failure behavior when a UID resolves to nothing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the row shape and the resolution/caching mechanics. The enumerated row fields and double-backtick formatting are somewhat verbose given an output schema exists, but ordering info ("newest first") and the caching note earn their 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?

With an output schema present the return shape needn't be repeated, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still supplies the resolution pipeline, the drop-on-missing-UID rule, and caching. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 uid/limit/since/until are already documented with types, defaults, and date formats. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or interaction (e.g., how limit interacts with since/until windows). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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: returns "one company's registry events" from gazette publications, with the confirmation-vs-UID qualifier adding precision. An agent can tell it is a per-company event reader. However, it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like swissco_publications or swissco_search, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required uid parameter and the "one company's" framing suggest it is the right call when you already have a company UID. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to swissco_lookup (for getting the UID) or the other publication-related siblings.

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