search_events_tool

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose return shape ('raw event rows with screen/OCR data') and the empty-result behavior that triggers the fallback, which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, result limits, or cost of a broad query for what is likely an expensive scan.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a targeted enumeration and two routing rules; no filler. The content-type list is long but each item maps to a distinct search target, so it earns its space, though it could be tightened into fewer lines.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still adds the useful fact that rows contain raw screen/OCR data. Routing, fallback, and scope are all covered; the only real omission is parameter-level query guidance.

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 single 'question' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The content-type list and natural-language framing ('If the result says...') imply the parameter is a free-text question rather than a keyword or timestamp filter, which is real guidance, but it never states the query format, timestamp syntax, or expected phrasing explicitly.

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 (search) and resource (individual events in the activity database), then enumerates the concrete content types it covers (messages, OCR text, URLs, clipboard, app usage). It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_sessions_tool and search_bounded_tool, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use content, a named fallback ('If the result says the info isn't there, call search_sessions_tool next'), and a named preference case ('For exact date ranges prefer search_bounded_tool'). This is the full when/when-not/alternatives triad.

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