Event properties

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. Beyond that the description discloses a real behavioral trait not in the annotations: output is truncated to the ten most frequent values per key with a residual count, and that event/page/property values are raw visitor-supplied text reported as received (i.e., potentially dirty data). It does not mention pagination or limits on property keys.

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?

Front-loaded with what the report contains, followed by data sourcing, date rules, and a data-quality caveat. Three tight sentences with no filler, though the final sentence about raw visitor text is somewhat peripheral to invoking the tool.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating keys, top-ten values, counts, visits, and the remainder count. It also covers id sourcing and date-range limits, leaving only edge behavior (empty events, error cases) unstated for a simple four-parameter read tool.

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%, so every parameter (project_id, from, to, event) is already documented with format and constraints. The description restates the date bounds and the list_projects sourcing rather than adding syntax or semantics the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (property values of one named event) and exactly what it returns: per property key the ten most frequent values with counts and visits, plus the count of the rest. This is distinct from siblings like overview, features, or engagement, which an agent can tell apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a workflow prerequisite ('the project id and the project's today come from list_projects') and a hard usage constraint (to at most today, range at most 400 days). However, it never says when to choose this tool over siblings such as overview or features, nor any when-not condition, so usage is only implied by the output description.

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