search_risk_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's safety profile is clear. The description adds context about covered risk event types but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or performance characteristics.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information: what the tool does and what it covers, then adds a use-case hint.

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 read-only search tool with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the scope (risk events types) and purpose. It could be more complete by hinting at the output format or differentiating from similar sibling tools, but it is sufficient 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 it searches risk events and lists specific types (delisting risk, pledge risk, etc.), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'search_events_by_type', leaving some ambiguity.

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 suggests using it for 'early warning signals', providing a use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives among the 14 sibling tools, so guidance is limited.

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