query_agent_run_mission_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination defaults (page 1, limit 25), ordering (newest first), and return fields (data, total, page, limit, pages). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotations.

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?

Every sentence adds value: purpose, filtering, alternative, read-only, and return format. The description is front-loaded with the core action and is concise without 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?

For a read-only search tool with 8 optional filters, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, filters, pagination, ordering, alternative, and return structure. Since there is no output schema, the explicit listing of return fields (data, total, page, limit, pages) ensures the agent knows what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter documented. The description adds semantic grouping: run_id/event_type for pinpointing and status/request_hash/policy_snapshot_id/schema_snapshot_id for lineage audits. This provides context beyond the schema, though it doesn't add syntax details, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 searches 'canonical mission-event records across all of the organization's agent runs' with pagination and filtering. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool get_agent_run_mission_events, which is for when the run_id is already known, so an agent can distinguish between them 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?

It explicitly directs the agent to use get_agent_run_mission_events when the run_id is known, and describes when to use various filters (pinpoint vs. lineage audits). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, leaving no ambiguity.

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