slc_red_event

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, returns data in a particular format, or has any rate limits or side effects. The scant phrase 'retrieval' implies a read operation, but without specifics it is insufficient.

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 extremely brief, consisting of a single noun phrase. While this is concise and front-loaded, it is under-specified to the point of not providing adequate information. It does not waste words, but the lack of structure and detail makes it less effective than a well-structured two-sentence description would be.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters interact, or any context around 'red tourism/historical events'. The concise phrase leaves the agent guessing about invocation details, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and usage.

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 covers 67% of parameters (key and date have descriptions), but the description itself adds nothing about the parameters. The 'keyword' parameter is undocumented in the schema and the description gives no hint about its meaning or usage. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, offering no added semantics beyond the schema.

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 '红色旅游/历史事件检索' (red tourism/historical event retrieval) clearly states the tool's function: retrieving red tourism or historical events. It includes a specific resource and an action (检索/search). While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like slc_era or slc_building, the focus on red tourism/historical events is a distinct subject area, so it is clear enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites like the API key. The description only names the function and provides no usage scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when it should be selected.

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