search_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by specifying that results include upcoming events with dates, venues, prices, and ticket links. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, potential limitations, or response structure beyond the listed fields, which would be expected given no annotations.

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 single, concise sentence that efficiently covers purpose and return content. No wasted words, and the most important information (searchable fields and output components) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, with three parameters and a clear return description, and the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the return-content statement. However, the lack of any usage guidance or differentiation from sibling tools leaves a gap in contextual completeness. An agent cannot determine when to prefer this over events_by_category or weekend_events.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description's mention of 'city or keyword' partially aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'local events', and specifies the search attributes (city or keyword). It also indicates what is returned (upcoming events with dates, venues, prices, ticket links). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like events_by_category or weekend_events, the scope is clear enough to be differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention events_by_category, weekend_events, or get_event_details, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and search-based functionality.

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