event_search

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses that matching is lexical, not semantic, spells out the three-tier ranking order, and states results come 'in brief' with best matches first. It stops short of covering limits on result count or pagination behavior.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the purpose and the create-avoidance rationale first, then matching semantics, then the two filters. The middle sentence is a long run-on, but every clause (rounding, ranking, return shape) carries information the agent needs, so nothing is padding.

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 3-param, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: required query, both optional filters, ranking order, and a rough return shape ('{events} in brief'). Missing only edge details like default limit and whether results are paginated.

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 only 33% (query is documented, limit and state are not), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains state as 'a state, "open" or "closed"' (clarifying the enum grouping) and that limit 'caps the number returned'. It omits default limit and the meaning of the individual states, leaving some gap.

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 verb and resource ('Find Events for a query') and immediately frames the scope in a way an agent can distinguish from entity_search or event_get: it searches Events by text. The parenthetical use case ('before creating one') makes the role of the tool unmistakable.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition ('before creating one, so one matter does not become two'), which is exactly the decision point an agent faces. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or an exclusion (e.g., when to prefer entity_search or event_get instead), so it falls short of the 5 rubric.

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