Search Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it claims the search spans the full 994-event catalog (not just the builtin fallback list) and that results are paginated, both of which inform how an agent should call and handle results.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place: the first states the core behavior and the second adds catalog scope and pagination behavior. There is no redundant or vague filler.

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 rich annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details an agent needs: the resource being searched, optional filtering, catalog breadth, and pagination. It could have explicitly mentioned the response_format option or given examples, but these are already available in the schema, so the description is adequately complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, though it does reinforce 'optionally filtered by category' and mentions pagination, which maps to the limit and offset parameters. No parameter details are contradicted or left unclear.

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 states an explicit action ('Search'), a specific resource ('SimConnect events'), and the main input ('by keyword, optionally filtered by category'). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like msfs_search_simvars and msfs_search_lvars by naming its resource, and clarifies it covers the full 994-event catalog rather than only the builtin fallback list.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: searching events by keyword with optional category filtering, and it notes that the full catalog is searched, not just the fallback list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is explicit enough that an agent can select it over trigger-oriented or simvar-search siblings.

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