search_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain what fields are searched, the optional date range, and the default calendar behavior. However, it does not describe result ordering, whether pagination is applied beyond schema defaults, or the shape of the returned events, which are meaningful behavioral details for a search tool.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core action and scope come first, followed by the key default behavior. Every word adds information.

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 search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: searchable fields, optional date filtering, and the default calendar. It could mention result ordering or pagination, but those are partially inferable from the schema's limit/offset descriptions, so the gap is not critical.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that query text spans summary, description, location, and attendees, which is richer than the schema's generic 'Text to search for'. It also clarifies that date_min and date_max form an optional date range and that calendar_uid defaults to the user's default calendar.

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 clearly identifies the verb (search), the resource (calendar events), and the search scope (summary, description, location, attendees). It also distinguishes this from list_events by emphasizing text-based search, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this when searching calendar events by text, optionally constrained by a date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'Search calendar events by text' makes the intended usage evident relative to sibling list tools.

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