v2_events

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral value: an empty result is treated as a diagnostic signal rather than as evidence of health. That is the kind of platform-specific behavior annotations cannot express. It omits pagination/default-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences, filter set front-loaded and the distinctive diagnostic behavior placed last. Nothing is wasted, though the terse enumeration reads slightly like a field list.

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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the what and the notable empty-result behavior but leaves the agent guessing about paging, the default look-back interaction, and whether siteId is required. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 17%, so the description carries most of the burden, but it only restates the filter set rather than adding meaning. It gives no guidance on 'limit' (paging is mentioned but not its semantics or default), no 'siteId' scoping requirement, and no search syntax, so the low-coverage parameters remain under-documented.

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 resource (site event log) plus its filter dimensions, which is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like v2_alerts, v2_audit_logs and v2_log_diagnose. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and none of the many adjacent log/diagnostic siblings are referenced. The 'diagnoses an empty result' remark is a behavioral note about results, not routing guidance for picking this tool.

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