search_cb_events

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds return format {data, cursor, has_more} and lists type-specific fields like redemption_price, event_price, etc., supplementing the annotations effectively.

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?

Description is structured: purpose, event types, usage scenarios, return format. While slightly verbose, it is well-organized and front-loaded with key information.

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 parameter count (5) and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, event types, return format, and usage context. It could include more detail on response fields but remains complete for selection.

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% with each parameter documented. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches convertible bond events and enumerates four specific sub-event types (call_redemption, put_resale, conversion_price_down, maturity). This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_dividend_events, search_regulatory_events, etc.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use when: you want convertible bond corporate action signals — forced redemption deadlines, put-back rights, conversion price adjustments, or maturity redemption.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context of many siblings makes the niche clear.

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