events_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only lists parameters and a basic action, without mentioning side effects, output format, pagination, or whether the tool is read-only. Critical behavioral traits are missing, reducing 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 concise with a clear opening sentence and a well-structured parameter list. It avoids unnecessary details, though the parameter list could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no required fields) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers filter options adequately. However, it omits details on return format, pagination, or ordering, leaving gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter with examples and case-insensitivity notes. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles and defaults, though examples could be more comprehensive.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search Acme events by name, type, location, or attendee.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (Acme events), and the searchable attributes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like events_detail or events_upcoming, which have different scopes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like events_attendee_schedule or events_detail. It implies usage for flexible searching, but lacks direct guidance on exclusions or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names.

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