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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, which the description aligns with. The description adds the 'recent' and 'server-side' qualifiers, which provide some context, but does not disclose whether events are paginated, sorted, or filtered. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no redundancy. The core action and object are front-loaded, making it instantly scannable.

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 simple read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits details about the output structure, the meaning of 'recent' (time window), and any constraints on the limit parameter. With no output schema, some return format guidance would improve completeness.

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 schema covers app_id but not limit. The description does not clarify the meaning of limit (e.g., max count, default behavior) or the scope of 'recent'. Since schema coverage is only 50% and the description fails to compensate, parameter understanding is weak.

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 (read), resource (security audit events), and scope (for an app). It distinguishes the tool from generic getters like get_app_analytics, but does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling get_app_security_context. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_app_security_context or get_app_status. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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