piqrypt_search_events

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates the tool returns signed events (read-like behavior) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe any side effects. It adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and filters; the second gives a use case. Information is 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains returns are 'signed events with chain metadata', which gives a reasonable picture. However, it does not mention pagination or limit behavior, or provide details about the event format. Still, for a search tool, it is fairly complete.

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% (each parameter has a description). The description mentions filtering by type, time range, or 'session', but 'session' is not a parameter in the schema. This is a minor inconsistency. Overall, the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool searches an agent's cryptographic event history with filters, and returns signed events with chain metadata. It distinguishes from siblings: piqrypt_export_audit (export), piqrypt_stamp_event (create), piqrypt_verify_chain (verify).

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to reconstruct what an agent did during a specific period.' It gives context for when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though siblings are different actions.

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