webmaster_list_search_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no ordering of results, no indication of whether this is a snapshot or a live view, no rate-limit or scope caveats (e.g. how far back events go).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the page/paging constraint leads. It is appropriately sized, though slightly terse given how much it leaves unspecified.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a tool with a required host_id and zero schema coverage of parameters, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer: which host, what ordering, and how it relates to the search-events-history sibling.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It contributes only the limit range (1-100), which is real added value, but leaves the required 'host_id' and the 'offset' parameter entirely unexplained, and does not say what 'offset' page-step semantics are.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and a concrete resource ('pages that appeared in or were removed from search'), so an agent can tell this is a listing tool for search-appearance/removal events. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like webmaster_list_search_urls or webmaster_get_search_events_history.

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 only guidance is the paging constraint ('one page (limit 1-100)'). There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the history/summary siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. host verification) are mentioned.

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