misp_search_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return format (JSON with specific fields) and the handling of restricted events (only id and restricted:true unless opted in). This goes beyond annotations, but does not conflict with them.

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: three sentences covering purpose, usage constraint, and return format. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 the tool complexity (1 parameter with nested properties, output schema present), the description covers key aspects: filters, constraint, return structure, and restricted event handling. It does not detail pagination or attribute search scope, but those are adequate for a metadata search tool. The output schema fills any gaps.

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 provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., tag, keyword, dates), so schema description coverage is high, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds the critical constraint that at least one filter is required, which is not evident from the schema alone. This cross-parameter guidance enhances semantics.

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 'Search MISP event metadata by title keyword, tag, and/or date range', specifying the verb (search), resource (MISP event metadata), and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like misp_get_event (single event retrieval) by focusing on metadata search. The output format is also described, reinforcing purpose.

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 explicitly mandates 'At least one filter must be provided' and explains that unfiltered listing is refused, providing a critical constraint. However, it does not mention alternative tools for similar tasks, such as misp_get_event for retrieving a single event by ID. The guidance is clear but could be improved by referencing siblings.

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