search_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool searches; it does not mention that it is a read-only operation, how results are returned, any pagination, or search semantics like case sensitivity. This is a significant gap for a tool with a non-obvious behavior.

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, clear sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making the purpose immediately understandable. There is zero wasted text, meeting the high standard for conciseness.

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, no output schema, and minimal description, the overall context is incomplete. The description does not explain how the search criteria interact, what fields are searched, or what the response looks like. Sibling tools like list_events are not clarified in relation, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. Therefore, no extra credit is given.

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 'Search for events matching specified criteria' clearly states the tool's action (search) and resource (events), and implies criteria-based filtering. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'list_events', which could also be used to retrieve events, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_events or get_event. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where search_events is preferred, leaving the decision to the agent without direction.

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