search_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('searches') without detailing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what the search returns (e.g., list of events, error handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, front-loading the core action ('searches') and resource ('facebook events'). Every part of the description earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (a search tool with no parameters but no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., event details, error messages) or any behavioral context like search criteria or limitations. Without an output schema or rich annotations, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameter information (or lack thereof), and the description does not contradict it.

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 'Searches for facebook events' clearly states the verb ('searches') and resource ('facebook events'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a search (e.g., by keyword, date, location) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'page_events', 'get_group_future_events', or 'search' (which might overlap in functionality). This makes it vague in scope compared to alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools like 'page_events' or 'search' that might serve similar purposes. This leaves the agent without direction on selecting the appropriate tool for a given scenario.

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