realtime_events_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses only the operation names and required parameters, which are already partially reflected in the schema enum. No mention of data freshness, geographic scope (beyond 'local and online'), rate limits, authentication, error behavior, or return format. Minimal behavioral insight is added.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence of scope plus a two-item operation list. No redundant text, clearly front-loaded.

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?

Two operations, dynamic args, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains operation parameters but omits expected return data, pagination, sorting options, and any caveats. It's sufficient for a simple dispatcher but lacks depth for production agents.

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 has generic args object with additionalProperties true, so the description's per-operation required parameters (query, event_id) are essential and add real semantic value. However, it doesn't list optional parameters or value formats, but for a dispatcher pattern this covers the minimum.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches local and online events with full event details, listing example categories (concerts, conferences, festivals). This distinguishes it from sibling realtime search tools (news, products, etc.) and aligns with the tool name.

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?

No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. The description implies usage for event-related queries but doesn't mention when not to use other realtime data tools or provide alternative tool names. Sibling tools like realtime_news_data and realtime_product_search cover different domains, but the description doesn't draw those boundaries.

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