event_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination behavior, ordering (newest first), the structure of each item, and the target parameter's config-based default. No contradictions with 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?

The description is appropriately sized, front-loaded with the purpose, then provides item fields, a usage tip, and a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or 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 four-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, ordering, pagination, filtering, and parameter semantics. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: severity with examples, limit with default, offset as page offset, and target as a Horizon configuration reference. This goes well beyond the bare 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 verb 'List', the resource 'Horizon audit events', and adds key details: 'newest first', 'optionally filtered by severity', and 'Paginated'. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing exclusively on audit events, making it unambiguous for the agent to select.

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 phrase "Use for 'what went wrong recently'" provides a clear contextual use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of fully explicit guidelines.

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