search_events

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavior. It states it is a search and returns specific fields, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it is destructive. For a search tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence establishes purpose and distinction; the second specifies return fields and optional filter. Information is front-loaded and structured efficiently.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the resource, return fields, and filtering. However, it could mention pagination behavior more explicitly, though the schema covers the page parameter sufficiently.

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%, with each parameter already having clear descriptions (e.g., 'Page number (0-based, 20 results per page)'). The tool description adds no new information beyond 'Optionally filter by free-text query', which partially repeats the schema. Thus, no significant added value over schema, earning baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly specifies the verb (search), resource (mountaineers.org events), and lists event types (festivals, clinics, etc.), distinguishing from activities and courses. It also mentions return fields, making purpose 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?

The description explicitly contrasts events with activities and courses, helping users understand when to use this tool over siblings like search_activities and search_courses. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond that distinction.

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