get_app_anomaly_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only query and the definition of anomaly events (deviations vs. a learned baseline) adds real semantic value, but it says nothing about pagination, result caps, ordering, or whether the timeframe is bounded by retention limits.

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 purpose and definition are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then an Args block delivers the parameter detail that the schema omits. The Args block is somewhat redundant in an MCP context but earns its place given zero schema coverage; nothing is padded.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, event semantics, and all six parameters. Remaining gaps are pagination/result limits and default behavior for the optional filters, which matter for a list tool with a required time range.

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 and largely does: it documents all six parameters, gives ISO 8601 format for from_/to, supplies the state enum values ('open', 'closed', 'all') that the schema lacks, and explains endpoint as a controller path. metric is only exemplified (response_time, throughput, error_rate) rather than enumerated, and defaults are unstated.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List anomaly events') scoped to a Scout APM application and a timeframe, and the second sentence defines what an anomaly event is. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_app_anomaly_event (singular), leaving the list-vs-detail split implicit rather than explicit.

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 implied by the timeframe requirement and the filter arguments (state, metric, endpoint), which tell an agent roughly what this tool is for. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the sibling single-event tool, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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