search_events_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool returns raw events, lists the fields returned, and specifies filter parameter formats (ISO-8601 for dates, 2-letter country codes, ASN format). It doesn't mention any destructive actions, rate limits, or pagination, but the behavior is well-described for a query 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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, provides usage examples, then details parameters and output fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 that an output schema exists, the description still lists the output fields (source_ip, country, etc.), making the return format clear. All 9 parameters are addressed in the description, and the required parameters are clearly indicated. The tool's complexity is fully covered.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains all parameters except 'limit': source_ip, country (2-letter code), asn (e.g., 'AS12345'), dest_port, protocol ('tls' or ''), http_method, and since/until (ISO-8601 UTC). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 it returns 'individual raw honeypot events with all fields' and provides concrete usage examples like 'show me events from this IP' or 'what hit port 443 last week'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely provide aggregated or enriched data.

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 gives explicit contexts for using the tool (e.g., raw event queries) via examples. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide. No alternatives are mentioned, but the examples imply unaggregated data use.

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