cvcue_query_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful behavior: results are ordered newest first, and each record carries severity, category, type, summary and timestamps. It does not state that this is a read-only query, whether results are paginated beyond the limit, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical category list earns its place by scoping what 'events' means, though the trailing field enumeration is somewhat list-like.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates reasonably by describing the returned fields and sort order. For a read-only query tool with fully documented parameters, this is nearly sufficient; only the read-only nature and any auth/rate-limit context are missing.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond listing the event categories that the returned 'type' field can take, which is mild value for interpreting results rather than for constructing the call.

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 specific resource (CV-CUE events/alerts) and enumerates the event categories it covers (WIPS, performance, connectivity, system), plus the fields returned. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling cvcue_event_summary or cvcue_client_events, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though cvcue_event_summary and cvcue_client_events are close siblings that an agent could easily confuse with this tool. The only implicit signal is 'Recent', which hints at a time-windowed listing but never says when to prefer this over the summary tool.

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