search_events

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent safety): it discloses the local-filter-on-one-page behavior, the resulting sparse-page failure mode, the incompleteness of history, and that event summaries are untrusted third-party text. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent must know.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the two most important caveats (local filtering, untrusted text). No filler.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all parameters, so remaining burden is behavioral. The description addresses pagination filtering quirks, history limits, and untrusted content well; cursor semantics are left to the schema, which is acceptable since there is no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, country_id, event_types, and player_context. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a bounded page of recent world events') and names the two filter axes (country, event type). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_battles or get_country_wars, which cover different domains.

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 makes clear this is for recent, bounded, page-based event retrieval rather than complete history, and warns that filtering happens post-fetch. It does not name an alternative sibling for fuller event coverage, but the scope constraint effectively tells the agent when this tool is and isn't appropriate.

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