misp_search_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (though a limit parameter exists), output format, or implications of missing parameters. The description is minimal on what happens when no results are found or how search works (substring? exact?).

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and providing a brief example. No wasted words.

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 complexity of 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details on return format, search behavior, and when to use this tool over siblings. The example adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 86%, so the input schema already provides adequate descriptions for most parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool searches MISP events by multiple criteria (tag, type, value, category, date range) and provides an example use case for threat hunting. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like misp_get_event (single event) and misp_search_attributes (search attributes).

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 suggests use for threat hunting but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines. It does not refer to sibling tools or conditions that would make this tool preferable over others like misp_list_events or misp_search_attributes.

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