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. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: the requirement for Frigate+ or a configured search model. It also implies read-only search behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if prerequisites are unmet, potential latency, or any error conditions.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds examples, and the third states a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the query parameter via examples and mentions a key prerequisite. It doesn't discuss other parameters, but those are well-covered in the schema. A slight gap is not explicitly differentiating from structured search tools like get_events, but the semantic-search framing largely suffices.

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% for all 8 parameters, so the schema provides complete param semantics. The description adds marginal value by giving example query formats ('person at front door', 'red car') that clarify the 'query' parameter. No other params are discussed, but the baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 performs natural language/semantic search on events: 'Search events using natural language / semantic search.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the search mechanism and providing concrete example queries like 'delivery person' and 'dog in yard.'

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 indicates when to use the tool: 'Great for queries like...' giving natural language use cases. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires Frigate+ or a configured search model') which informs the user of conditions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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