Search events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantive work: it defines what an event is, illustrates both an event and a market identifier, and notes that events carry end_date. The only notable gap is explaining the response shape or pagination behavior, but for a read-only search tool the operational behavior is reasonably clear.

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 a few sentences long, includes concrete id examples, and connects the tool to the next step with search_markets. It is slightly front-loaded with background rather than the main purpose, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a search tool with no required parameters, the description gives enough information for an agent to know why it might call this tool and how it relates to the surrounding workflow. A full response format is not described, but the event/market relationship and date semantics largely compensate.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context around end_date and the event/market grouping, but it does not materially deepen the meaning of the individual search or limit parameters.

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 precisely defines the resource: an event is a grouping of markets that resolve together, and the tool's purpose is to find related market sets before using search_markets. It clearly separates this from the sibling tool search_markets by explaining the event/market relationship.

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 gives an explicit workflow: use this tool to find events, then use search_markets for the actual markets. It also points out that date filters are relevant because events carry an end_date. It does not name explicit exclusions or alternative tools like search_series, but the usage context is clear.

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