search_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the upstream source (https://aisafety.com/api/v1/events) and a licensing/attribution constraint (CC-BY-4.0, credit AISafety.com), which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, result format, pagination behavior, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The raw API URL is arguably documentation noise rather than invocation-relevant content, but it is compact and the licensing note is genuinely actionable.

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 seven-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers the domain and data provenance but not the shape of results, the fields an event record contains, or the interaction between q and the filter parameters. It is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 100%, so the seven parameters (q, cost, host, mode, type, limit, location) are already fully documented in the schema. The description implies the resource domain of the 'type' filter but adds no syntax, default, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 names the resource and its scope ('Conferences, hackathons, meetups, and other AI safety events'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like search_communities and search_jobs. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name and the domain nouns make the intent 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over search_communities, search_organizations, or the other search_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection purely from the resource noun.

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