search_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only search semantics, pagination via limit/offset, and default sort direction (ascending defaults to false). But it omits return format, default page size, behavior when no filters are passed, and rate/limit constraints. Has an output schema, which covers return shape, lowering the bar somewhat.

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 purpose and hierarchy explanation, which is good. The Args block is functional but verbose in a Python-docstring style; the ordering sentence is slightly wordy ('chronological or statistical field to sort results by'). Trade-off between completeness and conciseness is acceptable but not tight.

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 an 8-parameter, filter-heavy search with optional params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, placement in the ecosystem, and every parameter. Missing only cross-references to sibling tools (search_markets/get_event) and return-volume/pagination defaults, so it is nearly complete.

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: it does, documenting all 8 parameters with semantics (query filters by title/slug, tag is thematic category, active/closed scopers, order field examples, ascending default). It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though some specifics (valid order values, max limit) are generalized rather than enumerated.

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 clear verb (search/discover) and resource (Polymarket prediction events), and importantly distinguishes events from markets: 'Events function as high-level thematic containers grouping related markets.' This differentiates it from sibling search_markets and get_event.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as 'the primary entry point for exploring the Polymarket ecosystem,' giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name alternatives (e.g., search_markets for individual markets, get_event for a specific event id) or state when not to use it.

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