search_events

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: result merging across books, source attribution with roles, review_status indicating machine-approved confidence (not per-item human review), and canonical_summary being LLM-generated. This adds significant transparency beyond the schema.

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 in two sentences plus return field explanation. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor structure improvement possible, but no unnecessary details.

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers behavior, return fields, and data quality. It explains merging logic and review status, making it complete for a 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds little beyond the schema's descriptions (e.g., '限定来源书 slug' for book, '返回条数 1-50' for limit). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the meaning.

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 it searches for historical events across multiple Chinese classic texts with cross-referencing and source attribution. It explains that same events from different books are merged into one entry with per-source details. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_person or query_by_place.

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 implies the tool is for events that appear in multiple texts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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