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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the result sort order and explicitly flags that UNESCO heritage entries are undated, but it omits how the tool behaves when no layer is selected and whether bbox is effectively required for a spatial search.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence supplies the core purpose and then a compact catalog of sources; the final sorting note earns its place. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 multi-source search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about result shape and behavior when optional parameters are omitted (especially layer). It covers the searchable content well, but an agent still has to infer default search scope.

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 documents bbox, query, and year range, and the description adds value where the schema is weakest: the bare layer enum is enriched with source-specific meaning (UCDP since 1989, VEI 4+, NOAA quakes, etc.). It does not add much to limit or bbox, but the layer coverage is a real contribution.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource ('Search dated map events') and enumerates exactly which event categories and source databases are included. This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools, which deal with polities and world states rather than event lookups.

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 event/source catalog strongly implies this is the tool for historical and geographic event searches, while the sibling names imply non-event tools. However, the description never explicitly states when to use it over find_polity or world_at_year, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives by name.

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