Search events by text

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it discloses one request per field and per calendar, and explains the AND combination semantics for multiple fields — a non-obvious correctness and cost trait. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second delivers the critical caveat about server-side execution and AND semantics. No filler; every clause adds decision-relevant information.

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 annotations covering safety, full parameter documentation in the schema, and an output schema present, the description only needs to clarify the non-obvious matching semantics, which it does. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds essential meaning for the fields parameter by explaining that multiple fields are ANDed, preventing the natural assumption of OR matching across summary, description, and location. It also highlights how fields and calendars multiply server requests.

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: 'Finds events whose summary, description or location contains a term.' This clearly conveys text-search behavior and the searchable fields, which distinguishes it from list_events and other retrieval siblings without needing to inspect the schema.

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 text-based event search, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_events or name alternatives/exclusions. The AND-semantics caveat is useful parameter guidance but does not address tool-selection context.

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