Search And Get Events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the legacy endpoint and the RSID mechanism but omits critical traits: whether the RSID persists, whether pagination is supported here or via iterate_events_* siblings, authentication needs, rate limits, and error behavior. For a 9-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with no wasted words, which is appropriate. However, the extreme brevity for a 9-parameter tool is under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, preventing a 5.

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 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It should explain parameter meanings, default behavior, paging strategy, and the relationship to sibling iteration tools, none of which are addressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for nine undocumented parameters (from, page, size, order, query, until, format, account, columns). The description mentions none of them, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance on defaults like 'from: -2h' or the meaning of 'columns'. This is a severe deficiency.

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 states a specific compound action ('creates a search then fetches one page') and names the underlying endpoint and mechanism (RSID). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_events (which presumably fetches directly) and create_search (which only creates). However it doesn't explicitly say what it returns or how it differs from get_events, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this combined create-and-fetch tool versus calling create_search and then get_events separately, or versus iterate_events_page/iterate_events_next for paging. The agent must infer usage from the description alone, which only explains mechanics, not selection criteria.

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