search_events

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses ordering (newest first), limit (<=200), and date coverage (2009). Lacks details on errors, authentication, rate limits, or behavior when no results.

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?

Description is efficient (5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and structured with line breaks for readability. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With 6 parameters and output schema present, description covers all parameters and output format (JSON). Minor gap: no explanation of company_name_contains matching behavior, but overall sufficient for the complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description explains each parameter comprehensively: date format and range for date_from/date_to, accent-insensitive provinces, enum examples for act_types, and max value for limit. company_name_contains is self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the tool searches Spanish commercial-registry (BORME) events, with specific verb and resource. Sibling tools have distinct purposes (e.g., company_history for specific companies, list_act_types for enums), so differentiation is implicit.

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?

Provides clear context: all filters optional, date format YYYY-MM-DD, provinces accent-insensitive, act_types normalized enums with reference to list_act_types. Does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but cross-reference helps.

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