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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses pagination behavior ('next_cursor pages through more results') and value formats, but says nothing about auth requirements, result limits, or how the seven filters combine.

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 semicolon-delimited sentence that is front-loaded with the event types. It is efficient, though the run-on structure makes it slightly hard to scan for a specific parameter's meaning.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves several parameters and the interaction between filters explained nowhere. An agent can guess the happy path but not configure jurisdiction, limit, or observed_since 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the date format (covering since/until/observed_since), the business ID format, and cursor paging, and the event-type list implicitly defines the 'type' values—but limit, jurisdiction, and the distinction between observed_since and since are undocumented.

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?

It states the specific resource (business events) and enumerates the exact event types returned, which is concrete. However, it doesn't distinguish this search from the sibling get_business_events, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use search_events versus get_business_events or search_businesses. The presence of a sibling returning events makes this omission notable; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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