find_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 adds a meaningful constraint—'Searches up to 30 days of history'—and makes clear this is a search/read-style operation rather than a mutation. It does not mention result ordering, result count, or how query and eventType interact, but it covers the most operationally relevant behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation, gives practical examples, and ends with the key temporal limitation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, how it is searched, when to use it, and the history limit. All parameters are documented in the schema. A small gap remains around whether query and eventType can be combined or how the optional date ranges interact with the 30-day cap, but overall the description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3 even without additional description-level parameter detail. The description's mention of searching by 'notes text' and 'event type' aligns with the query and eventType parameters, and '30 days' matches the hours maximum, but it adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search treatment entries') and names two search dimensions: text in notes and event type. It also gives concrete example queries that clarify the tool's intent. It does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings like get_treatments, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 explicit natural-language use cases, such as 'when did I last change my sensor?' and 'show all coffee entries', which tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It also communicates the 30-day search window as an important boundary. It does not say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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