Get an app's most recent raw events

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, by disclosing the returned field set (event type, path, referrer, UTM, device/geo, custom properties) and the recency ordering. It omits pagination/truncation behavior around the 50-event cap, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Two tight sentences: the core action and returned fields come first, and the sibling differentiation is deferred to the end. No redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough return-content detail to call it correctly and interpret results. Only the behavior at the event cap is unaddressed.

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 both siteId and limit (default 20, max 50) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the implicit notion of recency ordering and does not elaborate on parameters, so 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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('most recent raw telemetry events for one app') and enumerates the fields returned. It explicitly contrasts with get_app_report's aggregated view, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without reading either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (get_app_report) and the selecting condition ('spot-checking what's actually being tracked' vs 'aggregated view'). It does not state exclusions or a limit/volume caveat, but the raw-vs-aggregated routing is clear.

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