netintel_event_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real behavioral content: it names the underlying model (Claude Haiku), explains that relative dates are resolved against post time and timezone, and notes all-day/multi-day handling. However, it says nothing about auth, cost/latency of an LLM call, failure modes for unparseable text, or the return shape, and the sentence terminates mid-clause ('and returns…').

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, which is good, but it trails off with 'and returns…' rather than completing the thought, so the structure is compromised by an unfinished clause.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across four parameters, the description should do more. It adequately covers the extraction behavior and relative-date resolution, but the return value is cut off and the city parameter is unexplained, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'resolves relative dates … against the post time and timezone' maps to posted_at and timezone, and the input domain maps to text. The 'city' parameter is never mentioned or explained, leaving one of four parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Extract a normalized calendar event') and scopes the input domain ('any caption, announcement, or page text'), which distinguishes it from generic extractors like netintel_extract. It never names netintel_calendar or netintel_event_classify, so the agent must infer the boundary with those siblings rather than being told.

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 phrase 'from any caption, announcement, or page text' implies the applicable input context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to netintel_event_classify or netintel_calendar. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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