search_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the purpose and connection prerequisite, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, return format, default ranges, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a read-style 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a key usage prerequisite. It is two sentences with zero wasted words, making it easy 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?

The tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, but the schema itself is rich with descriptions. The description covers the essential purpose and connection prerequisite, but lacks behavioral context like return format or pagination. It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex search tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters including defaults and enums. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 searches Graylog events and alerts, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_streams or get_event_definitions by focusing on searching, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 instructs to call 'use_connection' first, providing a clear prerequisite for using this tool. This is useful context for sequencing, though it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives like fetch_graylog_messages.

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