search_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes vip_venues_open even when no events are found, and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are moderately important 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 two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately adds a crucial behavioral note. Every phrase 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, an output schema, and multiple siblings), the description covers the unique return behavior (vip_venues_open) but omits parameter explanations and overall search semantics. While the output schema may fill some gaps, the description alone is not fully 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 0% and the description only indirectly references the 'date' parameter by mentioning 'queried date'. It fails to explain the other 6 parameters (city, genre, area, query, limit, offset), leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'nightlife events', and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_venues and search_performers by highlighting a unique feature (vip_venues_open). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 advises to 'always check vip_venues_open before concluding nothing is happening', which is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like get_tonight or search_venues, missing an opportunity for fuller guidance.

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