events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a polling-style read operation that supports incremental syncing via an id cursor, but it does not explain ordering guarantees, cursor inclusivity, pagination behavior, or whether the account parameter filters results. This is useful but incomplete.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence says exactly what the tool does, and the second provides the intended use case. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 description conveys the core behavior and use case, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, it omits important calling context such as how account filtering works, how limit behaves, what 'since an id' means precisely, and how this relates to audit_log or orders. It is minimally viable but has clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only hints at since_id's role ('since an id') and says nothing about limit or account semantics. This leaves most parameter meaning to be inferred rather than explained.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll') and a specific resource ('unified audit/order events'), and clarifies the mechanism ('since an id'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like audit_log or orders beyond the term 'unified'.

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 phrase 'For agents to replace polling with incremental sync' gives a clear use case and context for when to use this tool. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as audit_log or account_activity.

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