search_events

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns {items, count, hasMore}, pagination semantics (increment offset by limit when hasMore), and that results only match titles (not full event details). It doesn't mention ordering or error cases, but it reveals the most important aspects.

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, densely packed with purpose, return shape, filtering, pagination, and a pointer to get_event. No fluff or redundant repetition.

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 there's no output schema, the description explains the return structure and pagination clearly. It also gives the next step for full event details. It's complete enough to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical semantics by explaining that after/before filter by event start date and that offset should be incremented by limit for pagination when hasMore is true, enhancing beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 "Search calendar events by matching the query against event titles," using a specific verb (search), resource (calendar events), and syntax (query against titles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events and get_event.

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 provides clear usage context: after/before for date filtering, pagination with offset/limit, and points to get_event for full details. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it compared to list_events, but the title-matching scope implies that.

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