search_map_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that events are searched by name; it does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned (full objects vs. summaries), case sensitivity, pagination, or limits. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function without wasting words.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with clear schema descriptions, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return value structure or result behavior, which would be necessary for full completeness. It lacks richer context that would help an agent understand expected responses.

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%, and both parameters (mapId and searchTerm) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('search'), identifies the resource ('events on a map'), and specifies the search criterion ('by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_map_events (which lists all events) and get_map_event (which fetches a single event).

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 implies usage for finding events by name but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. There is no direct comparison with get_map_events or search_troops, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.

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