find_parties

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

No annotations provided, so description fully handles transparency. It explains the return structure (JSON array with fields) and parameter semantics. However, it doesn't mention edge cases (e.g., empty results) or data freshness, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.

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 concise with a clear purpose sentence, a bulleted argument list, and a returns line. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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's simplicity (3 optional params, no required, output schema present), the description fully covers what the tool does, its filters, and its return format. No gaps remain.

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%, but the description fully explains all three parameters: 'day' with values list, 'after' and 'before' with time format examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the resource ('conference parties, happy hours, and social events') and uses the verb 'find', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_schedule or detect_conflicts.

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?

While the description lists optional filters, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_schedule for full agenda or plan_party_route for navigation). No guidance on exclusions or preferred conditions.

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