get_events_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; 'report' implies a non-mutating read, but that is inference rather than statement. The word 'condensed' is a genuine behavioral hint that the returned list is summarized rather than exhaustive, which is useful, yet freshness, scope (current state vs. history), and truncation behavior remain unstated.

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?

It is a single short sentence fragment, so it is not bloated, and the primary content is front-loaded. However, the phrasing is grammatically loose — 'with objective completion' reads ambiguously as either a field or a filter — so terseness costs clarity here.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only specification an agent gets, and it covers roughly what is returned. It stops short of describing the shape of the report (per-mission fields, ordering, what 'triggered events' contains), which matters because no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words on arguments.

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 contents — active missions with objective completion plus triggered events — which is more than the name alone conveys, so an agent can guess it is a status-report read. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_missions or get_daily_report, which plausibly overlap.

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 at all: nothing says whether to call this instead of get_missions for mission status, or instead of get_daily_report for event history. The agent must infer selection from the name and one phrase.

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