Search Events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: results include all event fields, count_only auto-paginates and returns only counts/breakdowns, and filters can be applied by various criteria. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or the behavior when no filters are supplied, but for a search tool it covers the most relevant runtime behavior.

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 well-structured: a clear opening statement, a bold 'RETURNS FULL DATA' section, a bulleted list of filter types, and a concise tip about count_only. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but each section serves a distinct and useful purpose.

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 11 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering filtering categories, full-data return, and count_only behavior. It does not clarify what happens when no filters are provided (e.g., returns all events) or explain pagination/sort defaults, but these are partly covered by schema parameter descriptions.

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?

The input schema already describes 91% of parameters, including mutual exclusions, case-insensitive name filters, and default/max values. The description adds a high-level grouping of filters and calls out count_only, but it largely restates what the schema already explains, so it adds limited extra parameter 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 opens with 'Search for calendar events within a date range,' a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_event by explicitly stating that the returned data is full and no subsequent get_event call is needed, making the search tool's purpose and advantage over its sibling clear.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Use this tool to find events by date, user, calendar, or contact' and recommends count_only=true for large datasets. It also implicitly differentiates from get_event by saying no follow-up call is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_events_attached_to_contact or get_event for single-event lookup.

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