search_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the AND-across-filters rule, case-insensitivity, which fields query/regex scan, and that ^/$ anchor to each field rather than the whole string. It also discloses a real output-shape difference between the two date modes. Undocumented: pagination/limit behavior, the calendars filter, and confirmation that this is a read-only operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the AND rule, then a compact per-parameter glossary, then the mode distinction — no filler sentences. The parameter prose runs together in dense fragments without separators, which costs a little scannability but wastes no words.

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 9-param search tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described), the definition covers the query language, filter fields, timezone handling, and result-shape switching adequately. The gap is the unexplained `limit` and `calendars` parameters, which an agent cannot safely set from this text alone.

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, and it does for 7 of 9 params — query, attendee ("part of an attendee/organizer email or name"), location, regex, start, end, and tz all get real semantics beyond their bare names. `limit` and `calendars` receive no explanation anywhere, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ("Find events by text") and the AND-filter semantics. It implicitly contrasts with the agenda sibling ("expanded, like agenda"), but never explicitly names which sibling to choose for which lookup, so it stops 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 description clearly splits two operating modes — bare listing of events/series without start/end vs expanded occurrences when both are supplied — which is genuine conditional guidance. However it never says when to prefer this over next_occurrences or calendar_overview, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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