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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, disclosing the event payload shape, severity levels, source registers, archived status, the 50-event limit, and important interpretive cautions about removal notices and exclusive access. This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs to use the result correctly.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerates event types, result attributes, caveats, limit, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds useful information without 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?

With no output schema and no nested objects, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It covers event content, severity, source, archiving, limit, and gives a concrete example. The caveats about removal notices and exclusive access further round out the context.

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 100% for the single slug parameter, and the schema description already says it is a builder slug from search_builders. The tool description uses the slug in an example but does not add meaning beyond the schema beyond illustrating the expected format.

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 identifies the tool as fetching a dated event timeline for a builder by slug, enumerating the event types. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state how it differs from get_builder_risk, but the timeline vs. risk distinction is reasonably inferable from the content.

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 implies usage through 'by slug' and the example, and it notes the slug comes from search_builders in the schema. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_builder_risk or when not to use it. The guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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