Bizkaia Now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers a genuinely valuable disclosure: fetched titles/descriptions are third-party content that must be treated as data, not instructions (prompt-injection defense). 'Get' also implies read-only. It omits auth/error behavior, but the output schema covers return shape, making this a solid contribution.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste: the operation is front-loaded, and the content-safety warning follows as a compact second clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

A simple single-parameter lookup with an output schema already documenting returns. The description covers purpose, lookup key semantics, and content-safety handling, which is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 0% with one input, so the description must carry meaning and does: it clarifies that event_id accepts either a numeric id or a 'stable key', explaining why the schema uses an anyOf of integer and string. It stops short of format examples or how to obtain a stable key.

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 and resource ('Get one event') plus the lookup scope ('by id or stable key') and return breadth ('with all its sources'). The singular 'one event' implicitly contrasts with the search_events sibling, but the description never names it, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no reference to the search_events alternative for cases where the caller lacks an id. Usage is only implied by the 'get one event' framing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully warns that titles and descriptions are third-party content and must be treated as data, not instructions, and notes the default region. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, permission requirements, pagination, or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The core search scope is front-loaded, and the safety warning follows immediately without burying the main action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a six-parameter search tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description omits meaningful filter semantics and usage distinctions, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies date_from/date_to through 'date window' and herrialde through 'Bizkaia by default', leaving limit, categories, municipality, and date format undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search events' within a 'date window', with a default region. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_event tool.

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?

It implies usage through the required date window and default region, but gives no explicit when-to-use context, no exclusion criteria, and no guidance on choosing between this and get_event.

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