Search events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds matching-scope behavior (titles, descriptions, locations, attendees) and the default cross-account read scope, but says nothing about result caps, ordering, or truncation behavior despite a max_results ceiling of 2500.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability and its matching scope front-loaded before the account-scoping caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 six-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, match fields and default scope, which is enough to invoke correctly. It omits anything about the result shape, ordering, or how max_results bounds output, which is the main remaining gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 83%, so the schema already documents query, accounts, time_min, time_max and timezone; baseline 3 applies. The description adds a little meaning by clarifying what the `query` string is matched against, but leaves max_results (the only undocumented parameter) unexplained and only restates the accounts default.

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?

States a specific verb and technique ("Full-text search") plus the resource (events) and scopes it to a time range, which cleanly separates it from the list_events / list_all_events siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings or explicitly contrasting search from listing, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 the trigger condition (you have a text query and a time window) and clarifies the default account scope, which is genuinely useful. It never states when to prefer this over list_events, list_all_events, or find_cross_account_conflicts, nor any exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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