Search event text

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals significant behavioral traits: absence of an index (making unfiltered queries slow), eventTypes filtering for speed, and how omitting q changes the operation to a history read. However, it doesn't mention return format or error handling, so it's not fully exhaustive.

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?

Three succinct sentences front-load the core purpose, then efficiently expand on behavior and parameter use. Every sentence contributes new information with no 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?

For a tool with no output schema and all parameters optional, the description covers purpose, parameter interaction, and performance considerations effectively. It lacks explicit return-format details, but the tool's behavior is well-scoped and the description is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 underlying schema already describes each parameter (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning by explaining how parameters interact—e.g., 'Give q or a filter—neither would mean every event in the world'—and the performance implications of using eventTypes, going beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 that this tool performs full text search over event prose, using the specific verb 'search' and resource 'events,' and distinguishes itself as 'the only way to find deeds' versus names or properties, differentiating it from sibling tools like search_objects and search_properties.

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?

It explicitly tells users when to use this tool (to find deeds/event text) and when alternatives for names/properties are needed. It also explains variants like omitting q to read history spans and the performance trade-offs, offering clear contextual guidance.

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