search_events_tool

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning raw events with all fields but does not disclose pagination (despite a limit parameter), sorting, rate limits, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 paragraph that front-loads purpose, then provides examples, parameters, and record fields. It is concise but could benefit from bullet points for clarity; however, no words are wasted.

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 9 parameters and a moderate complexity, the description covers filters but misses details on pagination, limit behavior, error handling, and data freshness. Since an output schema exists, return values are partially covered, but overall completeness is average.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining filter formats (e.g., country as 2-letter code, asn as 'AS12345', protocol as 'tls' or ''). It does not fully explain the limit parameter or http_method possible 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 explicitly states 'Return individual raw honeypot events with all fields' and provides clear use case examples like 'show me events from this IP'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (e.g., top_attackers, payload_search) by focusing on raw unfiltered records with specific filters.

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 says 'Use when the user wants to see actual records' and lists example queries. It implicitly guides usage but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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