search_request_events

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

Description reveals the tool is read-only and idempotent (consistent with annotations), returns up to 'limit' AtomEntry objects, and explains how to interpret results. Adds behavioral context beyond annotations such as the navigation pattern and example query syntax.

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?

Four sentences each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, navigation, examples. No redundant information; front-loaded with key action. Efficiently uses examples to illustrate parameter usage.

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 (2 parameters, clear annotations, and no complex output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, how to use parameters, and how to proceed with results. It is self-contained and sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description compensates by explaining that 'limit' controls number of results (default 20) and provides example expressions for search_parameter, clarifying expected input format. However, it does not document every possible operator or syntax rule.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches a feed-based event index for FOI requests and returns structured results. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_request_feed_items by noting that tool provides full detail after obtaining link from this search.

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?

Explicitly says to call this to find FOI requests matching a query expression, provides example expressions, and instructs to use the link field to navigate to get_request_feed_items for more detail. Implicitly communicates when to use versus alternatives, though no explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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