List events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a default 30-day window, newest-first ordering, and cursor-based pagination with the `next_cursor` -> `cursor` contract. It does not say what fields an event object carries or whether the window can be extended.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the resource then the semantics. Slight redundancy in repeating 'newest first' twice, but nothing else is wasted.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, default time window, filtering, and pagination — everything needed to call it correctly and to consume the response. The remaining unknown (event payload shape) is a low-risk gap for a listing endpoint.

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 75%, and the one undocumented parameter — `type` — is exactly what the description explains, including wildcard syntax (`invoice.*`) and a concrete example (`invoice.paid`) that the bare regex pattern does not convey. The cursor round-trip is also restated. `limit` and `object` are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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 and resource ('List events') and immediately scopes it: 'What happened in the last 30 days, newest first.' That tells an agent this is a recent-activity feed rather than an arbitrary query. No sibling tool lists events, so no explicit differentiation is needed, which is why this lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing question ('What happened in the last 30 days') and by the `type` filter examples, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, nor any pointer to a related tool for deeper per-object inspection (e.g., retrieve_invoice). An agent must infer that this is the audit/activity feed.

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