pix_search_events

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is narrower. It adds useful matching behavior (substring, glob, or regex) and states that filters exist, but it leaves the meaning of refresh, timeout, cursor pagination, and global_id bounds undisclosed. This is modest extra context beyond the 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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key search resource, matching modes, and filter existence are all present. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity contributes to the completeness gaps noted elsewhere.

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 11 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and a required capture_id that the description never mentions, this is under-specified. The existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, but input semantics, pagination, filter usage, and the required capture context are still missing. An agent would have to infer too much from parameter names to call it correctly in non-default cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies name_pattern (substring/glob/regex) and vaguely references 'optional filters'. None of the other parameters (refresh, cursor, category, queue_name, global_id_min/max, timeout_seconds, capture_id) are explained, and there is no mapping of filter names to the parameters. This is a substantial gap for an 11-parameter tool.

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 action ('search') on a specific resource ('events') with explicit matching modes (substring, glob, regex) and optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pix_list_events, which imply unfiltered listing, and pix_get_event, which implies single-event retrieval. The only minor weakness is not naming those siblings directly.

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 intended usage is implied by the phrase 'search events by name': an agent should use this when it needs to find events matching a name pattern. It does not explicitly compare against pix_list_events, pix_get_event, or other event tools, nor state when not to use it. This is adequate but leaves routing to the agent's inference.

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