find_interval_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful interpretive warning that temporal adjacency does not mean causation, and the word 'candidates' hints at non-definitive output. However, it does not disclose ordering, filtering behavior, or any side effects, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the causality warning earns its place as a meaningful interpretive note. It is appropriately sized for its scope.

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?

The description gives only the core search action and an interpretive caveat. It does not clarify what query or limit do, what date format to use, or how this tool differs from the many siblings in the context. Given the tool has 4 parameters and a rich sibling set, more elaboration is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly in the right situation.

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. It references 'two date endpoints,' which maps to date_from and date_to, but provides no meaning for query or limit. The schema's parameter names alone may be insufficient for an agent to understand how to form a query.

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 action and resource: search for experience/decision/event candidates within a date interval. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_topic_timeline by focusing on event candidates rather than a timeline, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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 prefer this tool over the listed siblings such as find_change_candidates or get_topic_timeline. The caveat about temporal adjacency not implying causality is interpretive advice, not usage context.

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