search_events

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It discloses ethical constraints (ETHICS-007, ETHICS-008) and the purpose of known_silence. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (limit/offset), result ordering, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only (implied but not stated).

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core functionality, ethical constraint, and example usage. No redundant phrases, front-loaded with the main purpose. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and 32 siblings, the description covers the main filtering dimensions and ethical considerations. However, it omits details about return format, pagination specifics, and how to best combine filters for complex queries. This leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 86%, high enough that the baseline is 3. The description adds value with the example query and the ETHICS-008 explanation for known_silence, but it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions of approximately 14% of parameters. The added context is moderate but not transformative.

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 historical events with filters on year, type, status, and documented silence. It uses a specific verb ('cerca') and identifies the resource ('eventi storici'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all 32 sibling tools, the filter-based search purpose is distinct enough from single-event lookup (get_event) or relationship-focused tools.

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 concrete example query ('quali genocidi sono registrati nel XX secolo?') and explains the known_silence filter's historical context. It implies usage for filtered historical searches but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for entity-specific events, use events_for_entity) or mention any prerequisites.

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