search_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search scope ('created by your organization') and the return fields (event_id, name, date, total emissions count), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe any side effects. The word 'search' implies safety, but more explicit disclosure would be better.

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 consists of three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: the operation, the use case, and the returned fields. There is no redundant or extraneous wording, making it highly effective.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, both documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, direct use case, and return fields, which is sufficient for a search tool. Minor details like matching behavior or pagination defaults are not mentioned, but the essentials are present.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (query and limit) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 the verb 'Search' with the resource 'events created by your organization in thatsme', clearly defining the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings such as issue_certificates and get_engagement_funnel by focusing on event discovery for certificate issuance and engagement checking, which are handled by other 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to find a specific event before issuing certificates or checking engagement.' It does not mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide without further guidance.

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