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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: results are newest-first, scope is bounded by the plan's retention, and it explains the non-obvious semantics of a short page with a cursor still present. It stops short of 5 only by not covering the include_payload effect or result shape (and there is no output schema).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searched before any operational detail, and every clause carries information (scope, retention bound, pagination semantics). No filler.

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 13-param read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: ordering, retention bound, filter surface, and page-termination logic. It could go further on the payload toggle and cursor reuse, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 77%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description names the filter dimensions (text, event name, level, delivery status, user_id, route, source, time) which loosely maps to the params, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (e.g. exact-vs-substring, cursor source). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Searches), resource (organization's recent raw events), and enumerates the filterable dimensions plus what's attached (each event's latest deliveries). This implicitly separates it from aggregating siblings like event_stats and single-event get_event, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it lands just short of a 5.

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 pagination guidance ('Page with next_cursor until exhausted is true; a short page with a cursor means the search window ended, not the history') is useful how-to-use context. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_event, event_stats, or get_user_timeline, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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