search_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only search but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether results are summaries or full events. The return value is not described.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It could be slightly improved by restructuring to front-load the main action.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about output format, sorting, pagination, and how it relates to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema mitigates this only partially.

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?

The description maps 4 out of 5 parameters (org, published, date_from, date_to) to natural language, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or default values.

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 discovers MISP events and specifies the filters: bounded date, publication state, and org. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like find_events_by_tag which also searches events.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling search/find tools, the description should indicate scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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