search_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: case-insensitive matching, default-all calendars, past-event hiding with include_past override, single vs per-occurrence treatment of repeating events, and the return contract (first `limit` by start time plus total count). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the second half is a dense run-on that mixes parameter semantics, default behavior, and return format into one paragraph. Slightly hard to scan but not wasteful.

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 and no output schema, the description must explain both behavior and return values, and it does ('Returns the first `limit` matches by start time, and the total count'). An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 does: it documents text (with example), calendar ('one name (default all)'), the required start/end format ('YYYY-MM-DD' or ISO datetime), include_past semantics, and limit's role. Only limit's default is left to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find events by words in the title, notes or location'), plus the key differentiator 'without knowing the date' with a concrete example ('dentist'). This implicitly separates it from the date-oriented list_events, but it never names a sibling tool explicitly.

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?

Clearly frames the primary use case (search when you don't know the date) and describes how the start/end presence changes what is returned. However it does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it (e.g. vs list_events or get_event).

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