search_events

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and says almost nothing about it: no mention of result limits, pagination, default date scoping, or whether results are ordered. It does not even state that this is a read-only lookup, though 'Find' weakly implies it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance and behavioral detail 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 seven-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description should clarify sibling routing, default date behavior, and limit semantics. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the remaining gaps are substantial.

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 71%, and the schema already explains the query facets, date bounds, ordering flag, and program_type filter in more detail than the description. The description's 'name, place or topic' is a loose restatement of the query parameter and adds no meaning for the other six parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('occurrences of programs') along with the searchable facets (name, place, topic). It is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes this from sibling lookups such as get_events, get_events_range, or get_week.

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?

No indication of when this search tool should be chosen over get_events, get_events_range, get_week, or get_events_range, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent is left to infer routing entirely from the tool name.

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