Get events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the HTTP method and a note about body fields, neither of which discloses behavioral traits like pagination, filtering defaults, or response shape. The schema's query description mentions pagination but the tool description itself does not; with rich annotations, the bar is lower but still not met.

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, with no filler words. It front-loads the purpose and then gives the endpoint, body note, and reference link. For a simple GET endpoint, this length is appropriate, though it omits valuable context. The structure is clear and efficient.

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?

The tool has a nested query object with many parameters whose semantics are only listed as names in the schema, not explained. The description provides no explanation of what an 'event' is, no pagination guidance, and no distinction from closely related sibling tools. Even with rich annotations and a detailed schema, an agent lacks enough context to confidently select and invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100% because the single 'query' parameter has a detailed description listing all documented query parameter names and pagination behavior. The tool description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema carries the semantic load adequately.

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 names the resource ('events') and HTTP verb (GET), so there is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly state that this returns a collection/list, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like xmatters_get_an_event or xmatters_get_suppressed_events. The description is essentially the tool's name with an endpoint appended, adding little semantic clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over the singular event getter or suppressed events endpoint. The description simply states the operation, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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