assess_event

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. The phrase 'as unverified' does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait about the resulting disposition, but there is nothing about side effects, persistence, permissions, deduplication against existing events, or what 'assessed' state entails for an 8-parameter write-shaped 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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and examples front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 8 undocumented parameters, zero annotations, and no clarification of what 'assess' or 'unverified' mean operationally, the description is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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% and the eight parameters carry only bare titles (breadth, importance, as_of, ends_at, source_url). The description explains none of them — not even the required event_type's allowed values or the default 'high' importance — so the agent must guess at 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 gives a verb ('Assess') and a resource ('event') and enumerates example event types (CPI, earnings, election), which is more than a tautology. However, 'assess' is opaque about what the tool actually produces or changes, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like event_readiness or assess_level.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus event_readiness or upcoming_events, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only hint is 'user-supplied', which implies intake of external events but never says so explicitly or names an alternative path.

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