Run an arbitrary timeseries query against your events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the input envelope, permitted values, defaults (e.g., aggregation default 'count'), and return behavior (gap-filling with zeros). It does not mention permissions or error handling, but given the read-only nature, the transparency is high.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose and usage, then detailing the input envelope. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the input format thoroughly, return behavior, and even references sibling tool 'event_catalog_canonical' for event names. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit mention of read-only nature and permissions, but overall it is sufficient.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter field, allowed enum values, defaults, constraints (e.g., max 20 breakdown values), and the structure of 'range' (relative vs absolute). It adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool executes a one-shot InsightsQuery without saving it, with explicit example questions. It distinguishes from widget creation and provides a clear verb-resource pair.

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 description provides concrete usage examples (e.g., 'how many signups yesterday?') and implies it's for one-off queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for saved queries.

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